Municipal Meetings

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a strategic planning session that was held as a closed special meeting by council for the City of Cornwall on November 4, 2023. The complaint raised concerns that some discussions during this meeting did not fit into any of the open meeting exceptions under the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 because the discussions did not come within any of the open meeting exceptions.

The Ombudsman investigated complaints alleging that council for the Municipality of West Elgin held meetings that did not comply with the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to livestream to the public all or part of its council meetings on September 14, September 22, September 28, October 12, and October 16, 2023. The Ombudsman found no evidence to substantiate the allegation that part of the council meeting on September 14, 2023 was not livestreamed to the public. In addition, the Ombudsman found the notice for the meeting on October 12, 2023 provided accurate information regarding public access. However, the Municipality of West Elgin did not provide meaningful notice of its council meeting on September 22, September 28, and October 16, 2023, resulting in the meetings being effectively closed to the public.

The Ombudsman investigated closed meetings held by council for the Municipality of Markstay-Warren on November 20 and December 11, 2023. At its meeting on November 20, 2023, council discussed a recent banquet for volunteer firefighters. At its meeting on December 11, 2023, council discussed a proposal to sell two fire trucks, a proposal to consolidate the Municipality’s fire and public works departments, and a recently completed integrity commissioner report. The Ombudsman determined that the discussions fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. However, the Ombudsman also determined that council failed to state by resolution the general nature of the matter to be discussed in closed session at both meetings, contrary to section 239(4)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman investigated closed meetings held by council for the Town of Cochrane on October 10 and October 16, 2023, where council discussed a proposed plan to encourage local development and growth by selling municipally owned land lots at a nominal fee and with a property tax rebate. The Ombudsman determined that the discussion at both meetings did not fit within the cited open meeting exception for acquisition or disposition of land because the transactions were too speculative, but that they did fit within the exception for plans and instructions for negotiations in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Cochrane on February 13, 2024 about the resignation of its integrity commissioner. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion about the integrity commissioner’s role with the municipality fit within the open meeting exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual in the Municipal Act, 2001. However, the Ombudsman also found that council’s subsequent closed session discussion about the process it would follow to replace the integrity commissioner did not fit within any open meeting exceptions in the Act, could have been parsed from the first part of the discussion, and should have been discussed in open session.

The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by the Committee of the Whole for the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville on July 5, 2023, to discuss an update on the Counties’ fundraising campaign for a municipally owned long-term care facility under the open meeting exception for plans and instructions for negotiations. The Ombudsman determined that the procedural discussion to determine whether or not to consider the update in closed session, and the closed session discussion about changes to the public fundraising policy, contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 because both discussions did not fit within any of the exceptions to the open meeting rules. However, a portion of the Committee’s discussion regarding internal communications processes related to donations and naming rights, including mention of particular donors and their wishes, fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. Because this portion of the closed session discussion could not have been further parsed, this portion of the Committee of the Whole’s closed session discussion did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman reviewed complaints about a closed special meeting of council for Norfolk County on January 9, 2024, as well as closed meetings held by council-in-committee on February 14, 2023, November 15, 2023, and January 16, 2024. The Ombudsman found that at its January 9, 2024 meeting, council did not provide sufficient detail in its resolution to proceed in camera and discussed a matter in camera that did not fit within the open meeting exception cited in its resolution. The Ombudsman also found that council-in-committee did not contravene the Act during its February 14, 2023 closed meeting, but did contravene the Act during its meetings on November 15, 2023 and January 16, 2024 by discussing some issues in camera that did not come within any of the exceptions to the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint about an interview panel convened by the Mayor of the City of Hamilton to advise her on the selection of a new City Manager.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint about a closed meeting held by the City of Hamilton’s Selection Committee for Agencies, Boards and Sub-Committees on October 24, 2023.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that alleged council for the Township of McGarry contravened the open meeting rules during an emergency meeting of council on September 1, 2023. The Ombudsman found that portions of council’s closed session discussion concerning the former Mayor’s resignation and potential appointees to fill the resulting vacancies fit within the open meeting exceptions. Although the remaining portions of the discussion about what method council would use to fill the vacancies did not fit within any exceptions to the open meeting rules, requiring council to have parsed those parts of the discussion would have detracted from free, open, and uninterrupted discussion. The Ombudsman further determined that the Township provided notice for the emergency meeting in accordance with its procedure by-law and did not hold votes contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman reviewed complaints about a special meeting held by council for the Township of Black River-Matheson on February 20, 2024 and about alleged gatherings of a quorum of councillors held prior to that meeting.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by council for the City of London on April 2, 2024.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that the Board of Directors for Saugeen Mobility and Regional Transit (SMART) does not hold meetings that are open to the public. The Ombudsman found that SMART is a shared local board of 10 member municipalities that is subject to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001.
 

The Ombudsman received complaints that a joint meeting held by the councils for the Town of Grimsby, the Town of Lincoln and the Township of West Lincoln did not adhere to the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman found that the first part of the closed session discussion fit within the closed meeting exception for education or training. However, small-group discussions that occurred during the second part of the closed session did not fit within any of the exceptions.

 

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a meeting of the Finance and Administration Committee for the City of Elliot Lake on December 18, 2023. The complaint alleged that council’s closed session discussion about procurement practices did not fall within any of the prescribed exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the Finance and Administration Committee for the City of Elliot Lake contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it received a presentation on proposed changes to the City’s procurement by-law in closed session on December 18, 2023. The Ombudsman found that the Committee’s discussion did not fit within any of the Act’s closed meeting exceptions.

The Ombudsman reviewed complaints about a meeting of the City of Oshawa’s Corporate and Finance Services Committee which raised concerns about the public notice – which was temporarily unavailable on the City’s website due to a technical issue – and about the failure of the audio during the meeting webcast.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a meeting held by council for the Town of Iroquois Falls on November 28, 2022.

The Ombudsman investigated closed meetings held by council for the Township of Jocelyn on January 10 and 13, February 7, April 4, and October 10, 2023 and found that the discussions at each of these meetings fit within various closed meeting exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001. However, the Ombudsman also found that the Township contravened the Act at its October 10 meeting by failing to pass a resolution to enter into closed session, failing to take closed meeting minutes, and by improperly closing the beginning of the meeting to the public. Although no illegal votes occurred at the meetings, the Ombudsman nevertheless recommended as a best practice that council clearly identify any specific directions given in closed session, formally vote on them, and record that vote in the closed meeting minutes.
 

The Ombudsman received complaints that meetings held by council for the Municipality of Whitestone did not adhere to the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman also received a complaint about a meeting held by the Municipality’s Wah Wash Kesh Landings Task Force and its open meeting practices.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding a meeting of council for the Town of Halton Hills held on August 28, 2023. The complaint alleged that council’s closed session discussion of recent provincial policy announcements about municipalities did not fit within the closed meeting exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001. The complaint also alleged that council did not pass a resolution stating that this matter would be discussed in closed session.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within any exceptions to the open meeting rules, and that council failed to include a general description of this topic in its resolution to proceed into closed session. Council accordingly contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on August 28, 2023. The Ombudsman also noted that council’s minutes incorrectly suggested that council had included this topic of discussion in its resolution when it had not.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding two closed meetings held by council for the Municipality of Callander on December 12, 2023 and January 9, 2024.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that the Committee of the Whole for the Township of Lanark Highlands contravened the open meeting rules on June 27, 2023 when it discussed a management letter regarding draft financial statements with an auditor during a closed session.

The Ombudsman found that the discussion about the management letter fit within the exception for security of the property of the municipality because the information discussed related to an ongoing threat to the security of the municipality’s property. However, the Ombudsman found that the Township contravened the requirements of section 239(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001 on June 27, 2023 by failing to keep an adequate record of what was discussed in camera. As a best practice, the Ombudsman recommended that the Township make audio or video recordings of its closed sessions.

The Ombudsman received complaints about the meeting practices of the Township of Tiny Administrative Centre Committee.

The Ombudsman received complaints regarding a special meeting held by council for the Township of Springwater on May 3, 2023. The complaints collectively alleged that council’s discussions in closed session did not fit within the closed meeting exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that that discussions regarding a rainbow crosswalk project and an employment matter related to the local public library fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. While a discussion about the completed hiring process for a specific position did not fit within the cited exception for labour relations and employee negotiations, a portion of that discussion came within the personal matters exception, and the remainder of that discussion could not be parsed. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that council did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 at its special meeting on May 3, 2023.

The Ombudsman investigated closed meetings held by council for the Township of McMurrich/Monteith on September 5 and September 14, 2023, during which Council discussed a potential disposal of municipally owned property. The Ombudsman found that council did not contravene the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001. The first portion of the closed meeting discussion on September 5 discussion fit within the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, and the second portion fit within the exception for the acquisition or disposition of land. The closed meeting discussion on September 14 fit within the exception for the acquisition or disposition of land.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint about meetings held by council for the Township of Lanark Highlands.

The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the Municipality of Temagami on June 20, 2023, during which council discussed previously owned property, a request to sell property, and issues related to a local long-term care home.

The Ombudsman found that council did not contravene the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 as these discussions fit within the exceptions for personal matters about an identifiable individual, acquisition or disposition of land, and litigation or potential litigation.

The Ombudsman also reviewed whether public notice was provided for the June 20, 2023 meeting, and found that the municipality had provided notice several days prior. The Ombudsman noted as a best practice that meeting minutes should be made available publicly available to improve accountability and transparency.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding several meetings held by council for the Town of Amherstburg in 2022 and 2023. The complaint alleged that council contravened the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to provide sufficient information about the topics of discussion in resolutions to proceed into closed session on August 8, 2022, February 13, 2023, and March 27, 2023. The complaint also alleged that council held meetings on November 29 and 30, 2022, which were not livestreamed and were not open to the public, and that council failed to provide public notice of its February 14, 2023 training session.

The Ombudsman found that council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to provide sufficient information about some of the topics of discussion in its resolutions to proceed into closed session. However, the Ombudsman found that the Town did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 on November 29 and 30, 2022, as he determined that the public could have attended the meetings in person, although he was unable to determine whether they were livestreamed. Likewise, council did not contravene the open meeting rules regarding notice of the February 14, 2023 meeting, as its training session did not come within the definition of meeting, and was therefore not subject to the open meeting rules.

The complaint also alleged that a gathering of members of the Town’s Accessibility Advisory Committee at a transit facility, where committee members were shown a demonstration of an accessible bus, in September 2022 was a meeting that was subject to the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman found that the Town did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 on September 8, 2022, as the gathering at the transit facility did not materially advance the committee’s business or decision-making, and was not a meeting subject to the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about meetings held by the Municipality of Calvin’s Ad Hoc Code of Conduct Working Group and Ad Hoc Municipal Planning Working Group. The complaint alleged that these two bodies were committees of council, and that they did not provide the public with notice of their meetings, publish meeting agendas, or have someone clerk or record minutes of their meetings, contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001 and the Municipality’s procedural by-law. The complaint also raised procedural concerns that these bodies were not properly established by resolution or by-law.

The Ombudsman found that the Ad Hoc Code of Conduct Working Group and Ad Hoc Municipal Planning Working Group were established through council resolution and were committees of council. The Municipality contravened both the Municipal Act, 2001 and its procedural by-law in not providing notice of these groups’ meetings and in not having someone clerk or record minutes of their meetings. However, the Municipality did not violate either the Act or the Municipality’s procedural by-law by not providing members of the public with these groups’ meeting agendas.

The Ombudsman received complaints that two closed meetings of council for the City of Elliot Lake did not fit into the closed meeting exceptions. The Ombudsman found that the meetings fit within the closed meeting exceptions except for a portion of one of the closed session discussions, which did not fit within the exception for personal matters.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that the City of Kawartha Lakes’ Short Term Rental Licensing Program Task Force may have held illegal meetings between April and June 2023, during the development of a by-law to licence, regulate, and govern short-term rental accommodation.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint about a gathering held by members of the Community and Protective Services Committee of the City of London on March 21, 2023. The complaint alleged that a quorum of the committee held a tour with the Executive Director of a local non-profit organization and expressed concern that, a few hours later, the committee held a formal meeting, during which it voted to recommend approving conditional funding for the non-profit.

The Ombudsman found that the gathering constituted an illegal meeting under the open meeting rules, as a quorum of the committee was present and committee business was materially advanced during the gathering. The Ombudsman noted that the information received by committee members during the gathering could reasonably be construed as having informed their decision-making. The Ombudsman recommended that members who organize tours that may be subject to the open meeting rules should consult with City staff.

The Ombudsman received complaints about a secret call held by members of council for the Municipality of Casselman on January 26, 2021. An audio recording of the call was inadvertently published on the Municipality’s website and the complainants were concerned that the discussion during the call advanced council business and constituted an illegal closed meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman’s investigation found that a quorum of council for the Municipality of Casselman materially advanced matters that constituted council business during the call, that it constituted a “meeting” under the Municipal Act, 2001, and was a very serious violation of the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman received complaints that a closed meeting of council for the County of Haliburton did not fit into the closed meeting exceptions. The Ombudsman found that the closed meeting did not fit into the exceptions for matters under another Act or information supplied in confidence by a third party. However, a portion of the closed session discussion fit within the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Town of Grimsby contravened the open meeting rules when it held a closed meeting on February 21, 2023.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint about a gathering of a quorum of members of council for the Township of Morley on December 14, 2022. The complaint alleged that the gathering was a meeting that did not comply with the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that that the Township of Morley contravened the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 on December 14, 2022. The members of council, who also comprised a quorum of the Roads and Public Utilities Standing Committee, held a discussion in a Township garage with a member of staff regarding snowplowing operations and materially advanced the Township’s business and decision-making. In failing to treat the gathering as a meeting subject to the open meeting rules, the Township of Morley contravened the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint about a closed meeting held on February 6, 2019 by the General Issues Committee of the City of Hamilton. The discussion in closed session related to a consultant’s report from November 20, 2013 that found that there were low levels of friction on the Red Hill Valley Parkway. The complaint alleged that the Committee breached the open meeting rules when it misrepresented a four-part PowerPoint presentation as a single item, and that some of the content did not fit within the exceptions of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman concluded that the Committee did not contravene the open meeting requirements under the Municipal Act, 2001, as the in camera discussion was permissible under the Act. However, to improve the accountability and transparency of its meetings, the Ombudsman made best practice suggestions relating to the Committee’s closed meeting procedures.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint regarding two closed meetings held by council for the Township of Sables-Spanish Rivers on July 26 and August 9, 2023.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a meeting of the City of Hamilton’s Agriculture and Rural Affairs Sub-Committee did not livestream a meeting to the public.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that council for the Municipality of Brockton contravened the open meeting rules on February 14, 2023 when it discussed a partnership proposal during a closed session.

The Ombudsman found that discussions about the partnership proposal did not fit within the exception for information supplied in confidence because the information discussed was not supplied confidentially and the reasonable expectation of harm was not clearly established. As a best practice, the Ombudsman recommended that, before relying on the exception for information supplied in confidence, the Municipality should confirm with the third party whether or not the information was supplied in confidence, and, where appropriate, inquire into what concrete harms could be expected if the information was disclosed publicly.
 

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that the April 19, 2022 electronic presentation of the Huronia Airport Task Force was not broadcast in the manner specified on the public notice.
 
The Ombudsman found that the Huronia Airport Task Force was a committee of the Town of Midland, the Town of Penetanguishene, and the Township of Tiny under each municipality’s procedure by-law. The Ombudsman determined that as the Huronia Airport Task Force materially advanced its business on April 19, 2022, the presentation was a meeting subject to the open meeting rules in each municipality’s procedure by-law. The Ombudsman found that the Town of Midland, the Town of Penetanguishene, and the Township of Tiny contravened the open meeting rules under their respective procedure by-laws when the municipalities failed to provide updated public notice regarding the changed electronic location of the Huronia Airport Task Force’s meeting on April 19, 2022, or record minutes of that meeting.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint regarding the April 19, 2023 meeting of Council for the Town of Deep River.

The Ombudsman received complaints about meetings held by the Committee of Adjustment; the Culture, Heritage and Tourism Committee; the Events Committee; and the Implementation and Beautification Advisory Committee in the Municipality of Callander.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that members of the public could not access the live broadcast of a meeting of council for the Municipality of West Elgin after council returned to open session from a closed session.

Our Office received a complaint from a person who was removed from the Township of Alberton’s May 11, 2022 hybrid council meeting because they refused to identify themselves on Zoom. The Township has a requirement that all attendees of council meetings, whether in person or virtual, must identify themselves. The purpose of this requirement in the context of virtual council meetings is to prevent “Zoom bombings”, in which uninvited individuals join a meeting and act in a disruptive manner.

The Ombudsman concluded that by removing the complainant from the meeting on May 11, 2022, the Township contravened the open meeting rules. Municipalities have an obligation to ensure that members of the public can freely access and observe open meetings and must be careful about placing conditions on their ability to do so. While not all such conditions will necessarily be a violation of the open meeting rules, in this case, requiring the public identification of all attendees was an overly intrusive measure that was not proportionate to the objective of preventing “Zoom bombings”.

The Ombudsman reviewed complaints that council for the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio contravened the open meeting rules on June 29, 2021, and March 1 and 7, 2022.

The Ombudsman found that discussions with Township solicitors about a development project and a specific agreement fit within the exception for solicitor-client privilege. However, he found that several resolutions to close the meeting to the public did not include a general description of the topic to be discussed in camera. He also found that council failed to formally vote on a resolution to move in camera. Finally, the Ombudsman found issues with the Township’s procedural by-law, which did not adequately address public notice for special meetings of council, and with the Township’s minutes, which fell short of the requirements outlined in its procedural by-law.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint alleging that the Board of Trustees for the Hamilton Waterfront Trust contravened the open meeting rules on February 21, 2023 when it discussed a letter outlining the Ombudsman’s findings about previous closed meeting complaints in closed session.

The Ombudsman received two complaints about electronic meetings held by council for the Municipality of Calvin on May 10 and June 14, 2022. The complaints alleged that the Municipality did not provide the public with proper public notice or the means to observe these two electronic council meetings, contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001 and the Municipality’s procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Municipality of Calvin contravened the open meeting rules by failing to ensure proper notice was provided for the May 10 and June 14, 2022 meetings. Additionally, the Ombudsman found that council contravened the Act on June 14, 2022, by failing to ensure that the public could observe the meeting in real time.

The Ombudsman received complaints that the Niagara Central Dorothy Rungeling Airport Commission lacked a procedure by-law and held meetings that did not comply with the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint alleging that council for the Town of Amherstburg held an illegally closed meeting over dinner on June 13, 2022 in between a scheduled in camera meeting and a scheduled open meeting.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint regarding the September 28, 2022 meeting of the Town of Huntsville’s General Committee.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint regarding the January 23, 2023 meeting of the City of London’s Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Douro-Dummer did not fit within the open meeting exceptions.
 

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie held meetings that did not comply with the Municipal Act 2001’s open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman investigated a special closed meeting held by the Grey Bruce Health Unit’s Board of Health on May 12, 2021 and a closed meeting held by the Board’s Executive Committee on May 10, 2021. The Ombudsman found that the Board of Health fits within the definition of a “local board” under the Municipal Act, 2001, while the Executive Committee fits within the definition of a “committee”, and accordingly, both are subject to the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman found that the discussions of the Executive Committee and the Board of Health on May 10 and 12, 2021 fit within the exceptions for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege and litigation or potential litigation. He also found that the Board’s discussion on May 12, 2021 fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. However, the Ombudsman found that both the Board of Health and the Executive Committee contravened the open meeting rules by passing resolutions to move into closed session without providing a general description of the matters to be discussed and by failing to keep a record of all matters discussed in the meeting minutes.

The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the City of Greater Sudbury on July 12, 2022, during which council received detailed information and legal advice about two third-party bids for a proposed municipal project.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that members of council for the City of London met improperly behind closed doors ahead of a meeting of the city’s Corporate Services Committee (“the Committee”) on October 12, 2021.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint about a training session held by council for the Township of Emo on May 28, 2022. The complaint alleged that council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 and its procedure by-law when it held a budget training in a closed session without providing notice to the public.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Emo did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 or its own procedure by-law when it held a training session in camera on May 28, 2022. The session fit into the “education and training” exception since council received training on the new budget format and did not materially advance its business or decision-making.  Additionally, the Township was not required to post notice of the training session, as it did not constitute a meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001, and was therefore not subject to the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that the Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on June 20, 2022, by failing to admit a member of the public to a meeting that was held virtually, using Zoom.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding closed meetings held by the City of Cornwall’s Municipal Grants Review Committee / Working Group on November 9 and November 30, 2021. The complaint raised concerns that these meetings were closed contrary to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the Committee is a committee of council and must comply with the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman found that the Committee’s discussion on November 9, 2021 did not fit within any exception to the open meeting rules. The Committee also contravened the Act on November 30, 2021, as only some of its in camera discussion fit within a prescribed exception to the Act’s open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman received complaints about the Hamilton Waterfront Trust’s meeting practices.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about gatherings held by the newly elected council for the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio on November 15, 24, and 29, 2022.

The Ombudsman reviewed complaints that council for the Township of McKellar contravened the open meeting rules during meetings on August 24, August 31, and September 9, 2021, and April 12, 2022 relating to the public’s ability to observe meetings of council.

The Ombudsman found that the Township contravened the Municipal Act, 2001, on August 24, 2021, when audio and connectivity issues prevented the public from observing the livestreamed meeting, and on August 31, 2021, when it failed to publicly livestream the meeting after council came out of closed session. Council also contravened the open meeting rules when it provided contradictory information about the time and location of its September 9, 2021 meeting and the location of its April 12, 2022 meeting in public notices.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint about numerous closed meetings held by the Township of Nipissing. The complaint alleged that council’s in camera discussions did not fit within any of the closed meeting exceptions under the Municipal Act, 2001, and should have occurred in open session. The Ombudsman determined that council for the Township of Nipissing did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 during in camera meetings on February 17, March 9, April 6, May 18, June 8, and August 3, 2021. The Ombudsman found that these in camera discussions were permissible under the Act’s closed meeting exceptions. However, the Ombudsman found that the Township contravened the Act on July 13, 2021, when it discussed the Township’s hiring plan in camera. This discussion did not fall within any of the Act’s closed meeting exceptions, and could have been parsed from the rest of council’s in camera discussion.

The Ombudsman received complaints alleging that council for the Municipality of Casselman contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it discussed the purchase of an identified property during a closed session.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that the City of Hamilton’s Working Group of the Physician Recruitment and Retention Steering Committee violated the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 when it held meetings on January 12, September 14, October 14, October 29, November 23, and December 14, 2021.

The Ombudsman reviewed two complaints about an emergency closed meeting held by council for the Township of Prince on March 15, 2022.

The Ombudsman reviewed complaints about meetings held by the Cultural Vitality Committee and the Tourism Board of the City of Sault Ste. Marie. The Ombudsman determined that the Cultural Vitality Committee contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on November 17, 2021, by holding a meeting that did not comply with the open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman found that the meeting was not open to the public, as the Committee did not provide the public with information about how to attend the virtual meeting. However, the Ombudsman found that the Cultural Vitality Committee’s resolution to proceed in camera was sufficiently descriptive to provide information to the public without undermining the reason for excluding the public. The Ombudsman also found that the Tourism Board contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on November 25, 2021 by holding a meeting that did not comply with the open meeting requirements. The meeting was not open to the public, as the Board did not provide the public with information on how to attend the virtual meeting.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding closed meetings held by council for Norfolk County on March 8, April 12, and May 10, 2022.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that the Coordinated Committee for the Town of Wasaga Beach contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 on July 21, 2022, when it moved in camera to discuss a report pertaining to the redevelopment of Town-owned property.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the City of Niagara Falls held a closed meeting on April 12, 2022 that did not comply with the requirements in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding closed meetings held by council for the Township of Minden Hills in 2021 and 2022.

The Ombudsman received two complaints alleging that the Town of South Bruce Peninsula voted in closed session on April 28, 2022, contrary to the requirements in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding a meeting held by the Heritage Permit Review Sub-Committee on March 15, 2022, and a meeting held by the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee on March 29, 2022, for the City if Hamilton.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the City of Pickering violated the open meeting rules found in the Municipal Act, 2001 on January 10, 2022.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by Dufferin County’s Infrastructure and Environmental Services Standing Committee on April 28, 2022.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Municipality of Casselman contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 during a meeting on October 26, 2021, by failing to pass a resolution describing the general nature of the matter to be discussed in closed session before moving in camera. The Ombudsman found that council contravened subsection 239(4) of the Act when it failed to state by resolution the general nature of the matter to be considered in camera. The Ombudsman also noted that the minutes did not accurately reflect the proceedings of the meeting.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Municipality of Casselman held a closed session on May 27, 2021, when three members of council participated in a video call pertaining to a development project with a neighbouring municipality. The presence of two members of council was never disclosed to other participants on the video call. The complainant was concerned that this gathering constituted an illegal meeting under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the video call did not contravene the Act because the discussions during the call were technical and informational in nature and did not materially advance council business or decision-making. However, the Ombudsman strongly encouraged the Municipality to maximize the transparency of its practices by disclosing the presence of all participants at any virtual gathering.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that council for the City of Brockville contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera on October 13, 2021. Council’s in camera discussions pertained to an employee’s performance in their role and to the employee’s conduct. The complaint also raised concerns relating to public notice for the meeting on October 13, 2021, and also for a meeting on October 18, 2021. The Ombudsman found that council’s in camera discussion on October 13, 2021 was permissible under the exception at paragraph 239(2)(b) of the Act, personal matters about an identifiable individual. However, council contravened the Act by failing to state in its resolution the general nature of the matter to be considered, as required by subsection 239(4). The Ombudsman also found that council did not comply with subsection 238(2.1) of the Act on October 13 and October 18, 2021 because its procedure by-law fails to provide for public notice about the calling, place and proceedings of special meetings.

The Ombudsman received complaints alleging that council for the Town of Amherstburg violated the open meeting rules found in the Municipal Act, 2001 when it held in camera meetings on August 8, September 13, November 8, and November 16, 2021.

The Ombudsman found that the Town did not contravene the Act’s open meeting requirements in closing these meetings to the public. However, the Town contravened section 239(4)(a) of the Act on September 13 and November 16, 2021 by failing to state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera. The Town also contravened the requirements of section 239(7) of the Act by failing to keep a record of what occurred in camera on November 8 and November 16, 2021.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a special council meeting held by the Township of Russell on January 10, 2022.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding a closed meeting held by the Governance Committee for the Niagara Falls Downtown Business Improvement Area on January 12, 2022.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that the Committee of the Whole for the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it received an update about negotiations with a commercial partner during a closed session.

The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Lanark Highlands on December 7, 2021. Council proceeded in camera to discuss the performance of an individual in the context of their employment with the Township. Council also discussed the Township’s finances, which would typically occur in open session. However, the Ombudsman found that it would have been impractical for council to parse its discussion of the Township’s finances from its discussion about the performance of an employee. The Ombudsman found that council did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 since the meeting fit under the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.

The Ombudsman investigated a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Pelham on April 19, 2021, during which council discussed future management and potential development of the local airport. The Ombudsman found that council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it met in closed session since the discussion did not fit under any exceptions to the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman also found that council contravened the requirements of section 239(4)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001 when it failed to state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that the Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera during a meeting on September 27, 2021. The Ombudsman found that the Commission’s discussion about an agreement with a client was permissible under the exception for plans and instructions for negotiations. However, the Commission contravened the Act when it discussed an agreement with municipalities and the related withdrawal process, as well as financial information. Moreover, prior to moving into closed session, the Commission failed to state in its resolution the general nature of the matter to be considered as required by subsection 239(4) of the Act.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the City of Owen Sound violated the open meeting rules found in the Municipal Act, 2001 on March 14, 2022.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about four meetings of Bruce County’s Executive Committee on September 21, 2017, August 2 and September 6, 2018, and January 10, 2019. The complaint alleged that the Committee contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it closed these meetings to the public and failed to report back in open session about its discussions.

The Ombudsman found that the Committee did not contravene the Act when it proceeded in camera on August 2, 2018. However, the Committee contravened the Act on September 21, 2017, and September 6, 2018. The Committee’s brief in camera discussion on January 10, 2019, about a new position for a specified individual fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual, however, this matter could have been parsed from the rest of the Committee’s discussion, which did not fit within any of the closed meeting exceptions.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about three closed meetings held by council for the Township of Huron-Kinloss.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that meetings of the Board of Directors of the Niagara Falls Hydro Holding Corporation constitute meetings of City council, and that consequently, these meetings do not comply with the Municipal Act, 2001’s open meeting requirements because they are not open to the public.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about two working group meetings of the Off Road Vehicle Task Force of the City of Kawartha Lakes held on February 19 and March 4, 2021. The complainant alleged that the meetings were held in violation of the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 because they were not open to the public. The Ombudsman found that the Task Force was a committee of council and was therefore required to comply with the open meeting rules. It was determined that there was quorum and the business of the Task Force was materially advanced at the February 19 and March 4, 2021 working group meetings. In closing these meetings to the public, the Task Force violated the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that council for the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera on August 11, 2020. Council’s in camera discussion pertained to a study report and a funding application, both related to an internet broadband project.

The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion about the study report was permissible under the exception at s. 239(2)(j), information belonging to the municipality. However, council contravened the Act by discussing the funding application in camera and by holding a vote by consensus on this matter. Furthermore, prior to moving into closed session, council failed to state in its resolution the general nature of the matter to be considered as required by s. 239(4).

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Town of Hawkesbury met in closed session on November 8, 2021, contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman investigated two closed meetings held by council for the Township of McMurrich/Monteith on June 8 and July 6, 2021. The Ombudsman found that council did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 when it held a closed meeting on June 8, 2021 since part of the discussion fit under the exception for solicitor-client privilege and the rest of the discussion fit under the exception for plans or instructions for negotiations. The Ombudsman found that the delegation to council during the closed meeting on July 6, 2021 did not fit under any closed meeting exceptions while council’s subsequent discussion fit under the exception for litigation or potential litigation. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that council contravened the Municipal Act because it would have been possible for council to parse the delegation portion of the meeting from its subsequent discussion.

The Ombudsman found that council for the City of Niagara Falls contravened the open meeting rules when it discussed the process for establishing a Chief Administrative Officer recruitment sub-committee in closed session on November 17, 2020. The discussion did not fit within any exception under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman also found that council failed to describe the subject to be discussed in closed session in its resolution to proceed in camera. Council further contravened the Act when it passed a resolution to go in camera during a portion of the meeting that was effectively closed to the public, as the public was unable to attend in person or observe a live broadcast.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that the Environmental Services Committee for the Municipality of St.-Charles held a closed session on August 17, 2021, when the two members sitting on the Committee attended a gathering with residents relating to garbage collection issues.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about an electronic meeting held by the City of Hamilton’s Board of Health on August 11, 2021.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed session held by council for the Township of Pelee on June 22, 2021. The Ombudsman found that since council did not discuss a matter in a way that materially advanced business or decision-making, the gathering was not a meeting subject to open meeting rules under the Municipal Act. The Ombudsman found that even if the gathering had been a meeting, it was permissible to have the discussion in camera under the exception for education or training.

The Ombudsman reviewed two closed meetings held by council for the Town of Collingwood on February 6 and June 11, 2018. The Ombudsman found that legal fee quotes containing specific information, such as suggested strategy, constitute advice subject to solicitor-client privilege. The Ombudsman found that council did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 since both meetings fit under the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The Ombudsman received complaints about the meeting practices of the Board of Directors for the City of Hamilton Farmers’ Market.

The Ombudsman reviewed meetings held by the Investigation Committee in the Township of Nairn and Hyman. The Ombudsman found that the municipality contravened the open meeting rules when it did not provide public notice of Investigation Committee meetings and when council did not state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be discussed in camera. The Ombudsman recommended that the Township ensure it provides public notice for all committee meetings, and that resolutions to proceed in camera provide a general description of the issues to be discussed.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Township of Russell contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it proceeded in camera on November 16, 2020 to discuss an infrastructure project. The complaint contended that the discussion did not fit within any exception to the open meeting rules. After investigating the matter, the Ombudsman held that council’s discussion was permissible under the exceptions at s. 239(2)(c), acquisition or disposition of land, and s. 239(2)(k), plans and instructions for negotiations.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Town of Wasaga Beach contravened the Municipal Act, 2001’s open meeting requirements on September 22, 2021.

The Ombudsman reviewed a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell to discuss information received in confidence from another level of government.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint alleging that the Saugeen Municipal Airport Commission contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it did not provide consistent public notice of its electronic meetings, including instructions on how to access the meetings. The complaint further alleged that the Commission contravened the open meeting rules because members of the public were unable to rejoin meetings after the commissioners rose from closed session. The Ombudsman found that the Commission is a local board and contravened the Municipal Act when it held meetings without providing adequate public notice, and by failing to pass a procedure by-law governing its meetings. The Commission also contravened the Municipal Act when it failed to adequately notify members of the public about how to request readmission to the portion of an open meeting following a closed session. The Ombudsman recognized that the Commission did not intend to exclude the public and commended the Commission’s efforts to increase transparency through changes to its public notice process and adoption of a formal procedure to ensure that observers are adequately informed about how to observe portions of a meeting occurring after a closed session. The Ombudsman recommended that the Commission adopt a procedure by-law governing its meetings and providing for public notice of all meetings. The Ombudsman further recommended that the Commission ensure the public is able to observe all open portions of meetings.

The Ombudsman received a complaint in May 2021 that a quorum of council for the Town of Espanola, made up of the Mayor and three councillors, improperly met on January 31, 2019 behind closed doors after the regular council meeting had concluded, contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for Loyalist Township improperly held a closed session on May 3, 2021, when a council member conducted a series of individual phone calls with other council members ahead of a committee meeting concerning a grant policy.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about closed meetings held electronically by council for the Municipality of Temagami on March 8, 2021 and March 25, 2021.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Township of South Algonquin contravened the Municipal Act, 2001’s open meeting requirements on September 8, 2021.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Town of Fort Erie contravened the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements on July 26, 2021 when it met in closed session to discuss the disposition of a fire station.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint alleging that meetings held by the Baconfest Committee and two workings groups in the Township of Lucan Biddulph contravened the open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman found that the Baconfest Committee fell within the Township’s definition of “committee” and that council contravened the open meeting rules when it did not provide notice, or record meeting minutes, of Baconfest Committee meetings. The Ombudsman applauded the Township’s proactive choice to dissolve the two working groups, which was done prior to his investigation, and replace them with one committee. The Ombudsman recommended, as a best practice, that the Township formally establish all committees by by-law, and ensure that all meetings are conducted in accordance with the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Town of South Bruce Peninsula improperly met in closed session on March 16, 2021, to receive a delegation  contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Township of Brudenell, Lyndoch and Raglan contravened the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements on October 8, 2019. The complaint alleged that council’s discussion did not fit within the exception for litigation and potential litigation under the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that council’s discussion was permissible under this exception, as it related to a matter before an administrative tribunal. However, the Ombudsman found that the Township failed to record minutes of the closed session or state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera. The Ombudsman recommended that the Township keep minutes of all open and closed meetings, ensure the integrity of any audio recordings of meetings, and make a number of amendments to bring its procedure by-law in line with the requirements under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Township of South Frontenac contravened the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements on July 13, 2021.

The Ombudsman received complaints alleging that council for the Municipality of West Nipissing contravened the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements on May 12, 2021.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Township of Lanark Highlands contravened the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements on September 22, 2020. The complaint alleged that council’s discussion did not fit within the exceptions to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that council’s discussion was permissible under the Municipal Act’s closed meeting exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual in s.239(2)(b). As a best practice, the Ombudsman recommended that the Township ensure that its meeting minutes reflect the council’s discussion on all substantive matters and that closed sessions are recorded.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about the meeting practices of the Joint Planning Committee (JPC) for the ConnectWell Community Health Centre in the Township of Lanark Highlands.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Township of McKellar improperly met in closed session on June 24, 2021, to discuss the West Parry Sound Pool and Wellness Centre contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that three councillors for the Township of McKellar improperly met with the incoming CAO/Clerk on March 3, 2021, contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the Township of Bonfield violated the open meeting rules when it held meetings in May and June 2020 over Zoom, without broadcasting or otherwise making the meetings accessible to the public. The Ombudsman recognized that these were the first meetings held by the Township during the COVID-19 pandemic, but noted that the pandemic did not alter the open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman also found that the Township failed to include information about topics discussed in the meeting minutes, including resolutions that were voted on but failed to pass. He recommended that, as a best practice, the Township improve its minute-taking practices.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Town of Kirkland Lake contravened the open meeting requirements in the Municipal Act, 2001, when it met in closed session on August 25, 2020. The Ombudsman found that council’s closed session discussion involved scrutinizing individuals’ conduct and job performance and that the employee-employer relationship was central to the discussion. Accordingly, the Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the ‘personal matters’ and ‘labour relations’ exceptions to the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Kirkland Lake contravened the requirements of s.239(4)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001, by failing to state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting held by council for the City of Niagara Falls on October 6, 2020. The complaint alleged that council discussed the designation of the Niagara River as a protected wetland in closed session. The Ombudsman found that this topic fit within the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege as council received legal advice from the City solicitor about the potential designation. However, the Ombudsman found that council’s resolution to go in camera was not broadcast live. The Ombudsman recommended that the City ensure that the public is able to observe all open portions of electronic meetings.

The Ombudsman received complaints about vote results displayed to the public during electronic meetings held by the City of Hamilton.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Municipality of Grey Highlands held a closed session on October 7, 2020, that did not fit within the closed meeting exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001. Council discussed plans to proceed with negotiations to enter into a joint venture with a third party and provided staff with directions on a series of matters related to the negotiations. The Ombudsman found that the discussion was permissible under the Act’s closed meeting exception for plans and instructions for negotiations.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting held by council for the City of Greater Sudbury on January 12, 2021 via electronic participation. The complaint alleged that council discussed an entertainment district in closed session. The Ombudsman found that council did not discuss the entertainment district. The Ombudsman found that the topics discussed in closed session fit within the exception for personal matters and information supplied in confidence by a third party. However, the Ombudsman found that council’s resolution to go in camera was not broadcast live. The Ombudsman recommended that the City ensure that the public is able to observe all open portions of electronic meetings.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about an electronic meeting held by the LGBTQ Advisory Committee for the City of Hamilton. The Ombudsman found that the public livestream of the meeting was not available for approximately 23 minutes. As a result, the Ombudsman found that the public was excluded from the meeting contrary to the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about two closed meetings held by council for the Township of the North Shore on October 8 and October 29, 2020.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Grimsby on February 16, 2021.

The Ombudsman received complaints about in-person closed meetings held by council for the City of Richmond Hill on April 16 and May 14, 2019, and about electronic council meetings held on April 1, April 22, and May 14, 2020. The Ombudsman found that at each meeting where it was discussed, council’s discussion in camera about a land use planning matter that had been appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal fit within the exception for litigation or potential litigation. However, the Ombudsman found that on April 22 and May 14, 2020, council’s resolution to go in camera was not broadcast live. The Ombudsman recommended that the City ensure that the public is able to observe all open portions of electronic meetings, including the resolution to go in camera and any business conducted after rising from closed session, even when the only item on the agenda is an in camera matter. The Ombudsman also recommended that the City ensure that information on how to access the live broadcast of an electronic meeting is provided in all meeting notices.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that on June 15, 2020, a quorum of councillors for the Town of Hawkesbury discussed council business that they intended to introduce and vote on at a council meeting scheduled for the next day. The complaint alleged that this discussion amounted to a “meeting” and was improperly closed to the public contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the Town did not violate the Act’s open meeting requirement because the Mayor’s sequential discussions did not constitute meetings under the Act.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting held on August 19, 2020, by council for the Township of Lake of Bays.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the County of Norfolk met in closed session to discuss the budget under the exceptions for personal matters, labour relations and acquisition or disposition of land. The closed session discussion focused on reducing service levels in the municipality by eliminating staff positions. Ombudsman found that council discussed items that fit under the exceptions for personal matters and labour relations. The Ombudsman also found that council’s discussion about selling municipal land to raise capital fit within the “acquisition or disposition of land” exception.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding two meetings held by council for the Village of Westport on September 15, 2020. The complaint alleged that due to a technical issue, council did not livestream the virtual committee of the whole or special council meeting for the public. The complaint alleged that, as a result, these meetings were closed to the public contrary to the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman confirmed that the public was excluded from these meetings due to technical issues and that as a result, they were improperly closed to the public.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting held by council for the City of Sault Ste. Marie on July 13, 2020.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting held by council for the Township of Russell on September 8, 2020.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Town of Plympton-Wyoming held a meeting on June 24, 2020 that did not fit within the closed meeting exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that council contravened the Act when it discussed how to fill the council vacancy in closed session. The Ombudsman found that this portion of the discussion did not fit within the exception cited under the Act for “personal matters”. Further, because the discussion was not permitted to be closed to the public, council contravened the Act when it decided, in camera, to fill the vacancy by appointment rather than by holding a by-election. The Ombudsman found that council’s closed session discussion regarding two individuals interested in filling the council vacancy fit within the “personal matters” exception under the Act. The Ombudsman also found that council’s vote to consider a motion in open session was a direction to staff and permitted under the Act.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Municipality of Temagami discussed matters during two closed meetings that did not fit into the exceptions in the Municipal Act. Council met in closed session on June 13, 2019 to discuss a harassment complaint under the personal matters exception. The Ombudsman found that the discussion only focused on the fact that a complaint had been made and did not include any personal information about identifiable individuals. Council met in closed session on November 7, 2019 to receive the findings of an Integrity Commissioner investigation and harassment investigations. During the meeting, council received legal advice from a lawyer. The Ombudsman found that the discussion fit within the exceptions for personal matters and advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The Ombudsman received complaints about the audio quality of a teleconference meeting held on August 11, 2020, by the committee of the whole for the Township of Lanark Highlands.

The Ombudsman received several complaints related to the meeting practices of the Board of Management for the Greater Napanee Business Improvement Area (the Greater Napanee BIA), which is a local board in the Town of Greater Napanee. The complainants alleged that the Board of Management made a decision about charging a levy without holding a properly constituted board meeting. They also alleged that on June 24, 2020, board members met in private at a local business, contrary to the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman found that the board did not violate the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements with regard to the levy decision or the social gathering. The Ombudsman also did not support the complainants’ contention that the then-Chair acted unilaterally regarding the levy.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that the committee of the whole for the Township of Johnson discussed matters during a closed session of a special council meeting on October 29, 2019, that did not fit within the exceptions to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act. Further, the complainant alleged that the Township did not provide notice for the special council meeting. The Ombudsman found that the committee’s discussion about the employment history and qualifications of identifiable individuals fit within the personal matters exception to the Municipal Act’s open meeting rules. Further, the Ombudsman found that the Township of Johnson provided sufficient notice for the special council meeting. However, the Ombudsman found that the committee of the whole violated the open meeting rules when it had a vote in closed session to recommend a candidate to fill the council vacancy.

The Ombudsman received complaints regarding meetings held by the Township of Stone Mills between August 10, 2020 and October 27, 2020.

The Ombudsman found that the Township of Southgate Fire Department Advisory and Support Committee held a meeting on October 22, 2019 that was not illegally closed to the public. However, the Ombudsman found that by proceeding to discuss fire services more than 30 minutes after the scheduled start time of the meeting, the township contravened its procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting held by the General Issues Committee for the City of Hamilton on August 10, 2020.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Township of Emo contravened the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements on June 23, 2020. The complaint alleged that council’s discussion relating to a “Council Code of Conduct” matter did not fit within the exceptions to the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that council’s discussion was permissible under the Municipal Act’s closed meeting exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual in s. 239(2)(b). However, the Ombudsman found that the Township contravened the requirements of section 239(4)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001 by failing to state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in camera.

We received a complaint that council for the Township of Sables-Spanish Rivers discussed matters in a closed meeting on September 25, 2019 that did not fit into the exceptions in the Municipal Act. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussions about a bidder on a request for proposals, and about candidates for an internship, fit within the exception for personal matters. The complaint also alleged that, prior to entering closed session, the mayor announced that the meeting was over – but council reconvened after the closed session to conduct additional business. The Ombudsman found that council violated the open meeting rules by failing to ensure that the public could observe the portion of the meeting that followed the closed session. The Ombudsman made several recommendations to the township to improve its meeting practices, including ensuring that minutes are complete and accurate, and that votes are limited to directions to staff or procedural matters.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting held by council for the City of Pickering on August 10, 2020.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for Loyalist Township contravened the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements on July 8, 2019, related to an in camera vote. The complaint also raised concerns about the amount of information that council shared in its report back following the closed session. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that council’s discussion was permissible under the Municipal Act’s closed meeting exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege in s. 239(2)(f). However, the Ombudsman found that due to confusion and inadvertence, council’s in camera vote was neither procedural nor a direction to staff contrary to the Act’s voting requirements.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that closed meetings held by council for the Municipality of West Nipissing on April 20th and May 26th were not audio or video recorded, contrary to requirements in the municipality’s procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Town of Saugeen Shores contravened the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements on July 22, November 11 and November 25, 2019. He also received a complaint that council held an informal private gathering that amounted to an illegal closed meeting on February 24, 2020. The Ombudsman’s investigation found no contraventions of the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding the April 15, 2020, closed meeting of council for the Township of The North Shore.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council discussed a matter that was not listed on the agenda during a closed session on November 19, 2019, and that council held an informal gathering on November 18, 2019 during which they made a decision.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that a quorum of councillors for the Town of Pelham informally met to discuss a possible donation from a cannabis producer on January 9, 2020, contrary to the open meeting rules of the Municipal Act, 2001. The complaint also alleged that councillors subsequently voted via email on whether they would be in favour of accepting the possible donation. The Ombudsman found that the informal discussion and subsequent email did not contravene the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements as these exchanges did not constitute meetings under the Municipal Act. However, the Town of Pelham acted without legal authority when it decided to inform a third-party organization that it was not in favour of accepting a potential donation from a cannabis company. By failing to act through resolution and confirming by-law passed at a properly constituted council meeting, the municipality tried to shield its decision-making process from public scrutiny. These actions were contrary to law and wrong under section 21(1) of the Ombudsman Act.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding the November 25, 2019 closed meeting of council for the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a special meeting held by the Township of Russell on April 2 by electronic participation due to COVID-19. The complaint alleged that the meeting agenda did not provide a link to the website where the meeting would be broadcast. The Ombudsman found that council for the Township did not violate the open meeting rules. The Township provided notice to the public that the meeting would be held via electronic participation and posted a link to the broadcast on its website and on social media prior to holding the meeting.

The Ombudsman commended the Township of Russell for taking additional steps to ensure that information about how to observe and participate in electronic meetings was widely available to the public. The Ombudsman urged all municipalities to do as much as possible to facilitate access by the public to any meetings held electronically during a declaration of emergency. This was the first time the Ombudsman conducted an investigation into a municipal meeting following the passage of the Municipal Emergency Act, 2020, which allows for additional flexibility in holding electronic meetings during an emergency, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Ombudsman received complaints regarding a closed session discussion held by council for the City of Niagara Falls on July 29, 2019.

The Ombudsman reviewed a meeting of council for the City of Welland held on September 17, 2019.

The Ombudsman determined that council for Norfolk County did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001, when it went in camera on March 26 and April 2, to discuss the hiring of an interim Chief Administrative Officer (CAO).

The Ombudsman received 77 complaints that closed meetings held by the City Manager Recruitment Steering Committee for the City of Hamilton were held in violation of the Municipal Act and the city’s procedure by-law. The complainants alleged that the public was denied access to these meetings, which were held outside city limits at a private venue. They also alleged that meeting times had been changed without notice and that the committee had denied public delegations. The Ombudsman determined that the public had been improperly prevented from attending the open portions of one meeting, contrary to the Municipal Act, and that the city failed to update the meeting time on its website. However, he determined that the location of the meetings was permissible. Exercising his general jurisdiction under the Ombudsman Act to review administrative concerns about municipalities, the Ombudsman determined that the city did not violate its delegation policy by refusing to permit members of the public to delegate during one of the meetings.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about three meetings of council for the Township of Carling, held on July 27, October 10, and November 13, 2018.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that the Committee of the Whole for the Municipality of St.-Charles inappropriately met in closed session on April 3, 2019, to discuss documents and recommendations about the municipality’s finances. The Ombudsman determined that the committee contravened the Municipal Act, 2001, when it went in camera to discuss the steps necessary to rectify errors and discrepancies in its accounting software. This discussion did not fit within the exception for personal matters, or any exception, to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman determined that the council for the Municipality of West Nipissing inappropriately met in closed session on March 19, 2019, under the exception for personal matters in the Municipal Act, 2001 to discuss “Municipal Act/Roles & Responsibilities”. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that council’s in camera discussion was unrestricted and covered a wide range of topics, but did not involve any personal information that would have brought the discussion within the personal matters exception. The Ombudsman also found that the tone of the discussion – which was described as toxic, chaotic and disrespectful – was not a basis for closing the discussion under the personal matters exception. In addition, the Ombudsman determined the discussion, although intended to educate and train council members on their roles, did not actually involve any education or training. The discussion therefore did not fit within the narrowly construed exception for education and training.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that resolutions to proceed in camera passed by council for the Municipality of The Nation at three separate meetings were not sufficiently detailed.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a gathering that two council members attended on April 14, 2019, and a special meeting of council held on April 15, 2019, without prior public notice.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding a closed special meeting held on April 29, 2019. Council closed the meeting to the public to discuss a legal letter.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that the doors to Hamilton city hall were locked during part of a meeting of council on February 14, 2019, and that the doors to city hall were barricaded during part of a meeting of the city’s Audit, Finance and Administration Committee on April 18, 2019.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a vote by the City of Hamilton’s Selection Committee during a March 1, 2019 closed meeting was not permitted by the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding the attendance of three councillors at an April 30, 2019 public proceeding of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

We received a complaint about a meeting held by the General Issues Committee for the City of Hamilton. The complainant alleged that committee’s two in camera discussions about the city’s contribution to the Hamilton Tiger-Cats’ bid for the 2020 or 2021 Canadian Football League Grey Cup Championship game did not fit within the open meeting exceptions for “advice subject to solicitor-client privilege”, “information belonging to the municipality”, or “negotiations”. The Ombudsman found that the first in camera discussion fit within the “advice subject to solicitor-client privilege” exception and the second in camera discussion fit wtihin the “negotiations” exception.

We received a complaint that council for Wollaston Township did not provide enough information to the public before closing meetings on December 3, 2018 and January 7, 2019, and that council should have used the exception for labour relations instead of the exception for personal matters.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding the January 10 and March 28, 2019 closed meetings of council for the Municipality of Temagami.

We received a complaint that members of council for the City of Hamilton contravened the open meeting provisions by exchanging emails relating to a vacant council seat in June 2018. The complaint also alleged that the city’s General Issues Committee contravened the rules by discussing and voting on matters related to the vacant seat in camera on July 9, 2018. The Ombudsman found that the city did not contravene the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001 when they exchanged emails regarding a vacant council seat in June 2018. The new definition of “meeting” in the Act requires that a quorum be present, such that an exchange of emails cannot be considered a meeting subject to the open meeting rules. In the interest of openness and transparency, municipal councils should continue to avoid conducting business outside of a formal meeting. The city’s General Issues Committee also did not contravene the open meeting rules when it discussed advice subject to solicitor-client privilege in camera on July 9, 2018. The committee did not vote regarding the vacant seat in camera on July 9; it did not contravene the voting provisions in the Act.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a meeting held by council for the City of St. Catharines in June 2018.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding four meetings held by council for the Township of Tehkummah in June 2018.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about the June 12, 2018 closed meeting of the Policy Review Committee for the Town of Carleton Place. The complaint alleged that the committee’s discussion about the sale of two municipally-owned properties and a related discussion regarding water and sewer services did not fit within the “acquisition or disposition of land” exception in the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that the closed session fit within the exception.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that one regular meeting of council, four special meetings of council and two committee of the whole meetings were held without posting notice online, as required by the procedure bylaw.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about the August 8, 2018 closed meeting of the board of directors for the Owen Sound Downtown Improvement Area.

The Ombudsman investigated a complaint about two information sessions on March 7, 2018 attended by a quorum of council for the Village of Casselman. During these sessions, the council members in attendance received information and updates with respect to the business of the municipality. However, his investigation did not uncover evidence that the council members in attendance at the sessions “materially advanced” the business or decision-making of council. These sessions were therefore not “meetings” under the definition in the Municipal Act, 2001 that came into force on January 1, 2018. In the interests of openness and transparency, the Ombudsman suggested that council members receive information and updates about the business of the municipality during public meetings of council.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Town of Deep River held a vote in closed session on May 16, 2018 that did not comply with the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman received complaints about the December 7, 2017 meeting of council for the Regional Municipality of Niagara, including a complaint that the meeting failed to comply with the open meeting rules.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a closed meeting of council for the Village of Casselman on January 9, 2018 and about discussions that took place among council members at town hall on January 11, 2018. The Ombudsman found that council for the Village did not violate the open meeting rules when it went into closed session to discuss human resources matters on January 9, 2018 and when a quorum of councillors had informal discussions at town hall on January 11, 2018. However, the Ombudsman made best practice suggestions relating to the Town’s closed meeting procedures.

The Ombudsman received complaints about three meetings of council for The North Shore, alleging that subjects discussed in the December 13, 2017 and February 7, 2018 closed sessions did not fit within the “personal matters” exception, and that the resolution on December 13, 2017, to proceed into closed session did not include all matters discussed. The complaint also alleged the township did not give notice of a special meeting held on February 14, 2018. The Ombudsman found that the subject matters discussed by council on December 13, 2017, fit within the exceptions in the Municipal Act, but that the township  failed to include all subject matters discussed during the closed session in the resolution to proceed into closed session. He also found that council violated the Municipal Act during the closed session on February 7, 2018, when it discussed how to fill a council vacancy. The Ombudsman found that the township did provide public notice of its February 14, 2018 meeting, but recommended that the township amend its procedure bylaw to formalize its general practices for giving notice.

The Ombudsman received three complaints that several closed meetings held by council for the Town of Amherstburg and the Joint Police Advisory Committee did not comply with the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act. The Joint Police Advisory Committee does not fall under the definition of “committee” under the Municipal Act, so the Ombudsman used his general jurisdiction over municipalities to consider whether the committee violated its terms of reference. The Ombudsman found the committee failed to comply with its terms of reference in closing several meetings using the security of the property exception. The Ombudsman found council violated the Municipal Act in closing a meeting under the security of the property exception but did not violate the Act by closing another meeting under the personal matters exception. 

The Ombudsman received a complaint that an informal meeting of council occurred after the April 16, 2018 meeting of council.

The Ombudsman received a complaint about a meeting of council held on May 22, 2018.

My Office received a complaint about a special meeting of council for the Township of Tehkummah held on May 15, 2018.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula inappropriately met in closed session on January 22, 2018 to discuss notice of an application for absolute title under the Land Titles Act for a property located within the municipality. The meeting was closed under the personal matters exception. The Ombudsman found that matters discussed during the closed meeting did not fit within the exceptions to the open meeting rules. 

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a non-council member motioned to move into closed session during the Township of Russell’s special meeting on April 19, 2018.

We received complaints that the Town of Petrolia held meetings that did not comply with the open meeting rules when it discussed a proposal by the YMCA in camera on September 11 and October 25, 2017, and when it discussed an individual in closed session on November 14, 2017. The Ombudsman found that a presentation given by the YMCA to council on September 11, 2017 did not fit in any of the exceptions to the Act. He found that a discussion that followed the presentation fit in the exception for labour relations or employee negotiations. The Ombudsman found that the discussion on October 25, 2017 also fit within the exception for labour relations, and that the discussion on November 14, 2017 fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.

The City of Hamilton’s Waste Management Advisory Committee is a committee of council subject to the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman found that the committee contravened the Municipal Act on September 27, 2017 and January 31, 2018, when it held meetings without providing notice to the public.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Town of Deep River inappropriately met in closed session on March 21, 2018, to discuss a development proposal and various fire service issues.

We received complaints that a closed meeting held by council for the Town of Pelham on September 5, 2017 about town finances did not comply with the open meeting rules in the Municipal Act, 2001. We also received a complaint alleging that following the September 5, 2017 council meeting, members of council held a gathering at a local establishment that constituted an illegal meeting. The Ombudsman found that the matters discussed in camera on September 5 fit within the exceptions for labour relations and solicitor-client privilege. He also found that the informal gathering was not a meeting subject to the open meeting rules, as council members did not discuss council business.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Township of Tehkummah did not provide proper notice to the public for a special closed council meeting held on December 22, 2017. The Ombudsman found that the township’s discussion fit within the cited “personal matters” exception, as well as the “labor relations” exception.  However, the Ombudsman found that the township contravened the Act and the township’s procedure by-law by failing to provide proper public notice. The Ombudsman also found a number of issues with council’s procedures, and identified best practices and procedural steps to improve the township's meeting practices. 

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Town of Fort Erie inappropriately met in camera on December 4, and December 6, 2017 under the “acquisition or disposition of land” exception to the Municipal Act’s open meeting rules. The December 4 and December 6 special closed meetings were to discuss a potential partnership with a post-secondary institution. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussions did not fit within the Act’s “acquisition or disposition of land” exception because council was in the early stages of deciding whether to proceed with the partnership, had not turned its mind to a specific property to purchase or lease, and was not acting with a view to protecting its bargaining position in property negotiations.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Township of North Huron inappropriately met in closed session on December 11, 2017, to discuss fire personnel issues.
 

We received a complaint that council for the Township of Lanark Highlands inappropriately met in camera on July 17, 2017 under the “advice subject to solicitor client privilege” and “personal matters” exceptions to the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman found that council discussed a number of items while in camera that were not included in the closed meeting agenda. Two of the topics of discussion, financial software and council’s interaction and communication structure with staff, did not fit within the closed meeting exceptions.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that the City of Cornwall inappropriately met with council for the Township of South Glengarry in closed session on September 19, 2017, to discuss the Cornwall Regional Airport. The complainant alleged that council for the City of Cornwall discussed matters and provided directions to staff that did not fit within the cited “personal matters” closed meeting exception in the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman found that council’s discussion fit within the cited exception to the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements, although the resolution to proceed in camera did not state the general nature of the matter to be considered.

We received a complaint that council for the Township of Russell held a meeting that did not comply with the open meeting rules when the public entrance to Town Hall was locked during a portion of a council meeting on July 31, 2017. Although the meeting was intended to be open to the public, a locked exterior public door prevented members of the public from accessing council chambers for the first half of the meeting. As a result, the meeting was closed to the public and the public’s right to observe municipal government in process was frustrated, contrary to the open meeting rules.

We received a complaint that the City of Welland held an improper vote during a closed session on September 19, 2017, to appoint a new member of council. The Ombudsman found that council for the City of Welland had contravened the Municipal Act, 2001, and the city’s procedure by-law when it discussed voting procedure in closed session under the “personal matters exception”. In addition, the Ombudsman found that council for the City of Welland contravened the Municipal Act and the City’s procedure by-law when it voted in closed session by secret ballot to select a candidate to appoint to the vacant council seat.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Town of Georgina inappropriately met in camera to discuss an organizational review of certain departments within the town administration as part of a larger service delivery review.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding the general meeting practices of the Town of Kirkland Lake’s Recreation Committee. The complaint alleged that the Recreation Committee held closed meetings by not providing proper notice to the public in contravention of the Municipal Act. The Ombudsman determined that the Recreation Committee was a committee of council, and therefore subject to the Act’s open meeting requirements.  The Ombudsman found that the Recreation Committee’s meeting practices contravened these requirements.

On March 14, 2017 the Policy Review Committee for the Town of Carleton place met in closed session to discuss a public statement made by the Mayor, citing the “litigation or potential litigation” exception. The Ombudsman received a complaint that this discussion did not fit within the cited exception. The Ombudsman found that there was not a reasonable prospect of litigation at the time of the closed meeting and the discussion did not fit within the “litigation or potential litigation” exception.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that council for the Town of Deep River inappropriately met in camera on May 17 and 18, 2017 to discuss a police service consultation plan. The complainant also alleged that a police service consultation “working group” formed during the May 18 closed meeting should have been classified as a committee of council subject to the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Deep River contravened the Municipal Act when it went in camera to discuss and vote on matters related to the police service consultation plan. The Ombudsman also found that the police service consultation “working group” was not a committee of council and therefore not subject to the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act.

We received a complaint that the City of Hamilton’s General Issues Committee discussed funding for certain transit routes known as “school bus extras” during a closed session on either March 23 or 24, 2017, contrary to the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman found that the committee technically contravened the open meeting rules when the bus routes issue was raised briefly during a closed meeting on March 24, 2017. Once the committee determined that the issue did not fit within any of the exceptions to the open meeting rules, it ended the discussion. The Ombudsman commended city staff and council members for being mindful of the open meeting rules during the meeting, but recommend the city exercise greater caution when adding items to a closed session agenda in the future, and that the city begin audio or video recording all closed meetings.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that members of council for the Municipality of Brighton discussed council business by phone in advance of a special meeting of council on March 15, 2017. The Ombudsman determined that the Mayor called four councillors in a series of phone calls to discuss an opportunity to sell land in the municipality’s industrial park. During the phone calls, members of council discussed specific terms of a proposal that was ultimately sent to a party interested in purchasing the property. The Ombudsman found that the phone calls contravened the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman received two complaints that council for the City of Elliot Lake inappropriately met in camera to discuss a motion to rescind a previous resolution regarding the recruitment of a CAO.

On March 14, 2017 council for the County of Norfolk went in closed session to receive a deputation from representatives of the Port Dover Community Health Centre Board and to receive legal advice pertaining to the deputation, citing the “personal matters” and “advice subject to solicitor-client privilege” exceptions. The Ombudsman received a complaint that this discussion did not fit within the cited exceptions. The Ombudsman found that the Board’s deputation did not qualify as personal information and that portion of the closed session meeting did not fit within the “personal matters” exception. The portions of the closed session discussion before and after the deputation fit within the “advice subject to solicitor-client privilege” exception.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that the General Government Committee for the Municipality of St.-Charles inappropriately met in camera on March 6, 2017, to discuss allegations regarding employee municipal credit card abuse. The Ombudsman determined that the committee’s discuss fit within the “litigation or potential litigation” and the “personal matters about an identifiable individual” closed meeting exceptions. The Ombudsman also recommended that the municipality update its procedure by-law to reflect the closed meeting provisions in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman received a complaint regarding five closed meetings held by council for the Township of Tehkummah.

We received two complaints that council for the Town of Grimsby held meetings in its capacity as a shareholder of Niagara Power Inc. without providing notice to the public, contrary to the open meeting rules. The complaints alleged that, on November 11 and December 5, 2016, council failed to provide public notice of meetings and did not make meeting minutes available to the public. The Ombudsman found that Council for the Town of Grimsby contravened the Municipal Act and the municipality’s procedure by-law when it discussed council business in camera on November 11, 2016 without providing notice to the public. The town also violated the Act by failing to pass a resolution to close the meeting. Council for the Town of Grimsby did not contravene the Act when it met informally on December 5, 2016, as this was not a “meeting” for the purposes of the Act.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the City of Niagara Falls discussed and voted on the sale of property in camera.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet had held illegal closed meetings in 2016 to discuss an organizational study of the municipality. The complaint also alleged that council improperly voted by email to approve funding related to a grant application. The Ombudsman found that the Township contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 and it procedure by-law when it voted during a closed session on April 4, 2016 and when it held three meetings without following any of the procedural requirements for meetings of council. The Ombudsman also found that the Township contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it approved funding related to a grant application by email and by telephone.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the City of Timmins held an illegal meeting on March 30, 2015 when it met in closed session to discuss an open procurement project.

On December 12, 2016 council for the Township of Russell went in closed session to discuss naming rights for a new sports facility, citing the “personal matters” and “litigation or potential litigation” exceptions.  The Ombudsman received a complaint that this discussion did not fit within any of the exceptions to the open meeting requirements under the Municipal Act. The Ombudsman found that the general discussion pertained to fundraising, naming rights and advertising for the sports facility, not to personal matters. There also was no discussion of potential litigation. Accordingly, the meeting was not permitted to be closed to the public.

Council for the City of Timmins contravened the Municipal Act on December 19, 2016 when it met in camera with a representative of Northern College to discuss a proposed development agreement with the college. The discussion between council and college’s representative did not fall within the acquisition or disposition of land exception to the Act’s open meeting requirement.

We received a complaint that the Board of Management for the Ridgeway Business Improvement Area (BIA) in the Town of Fort Erie discussed a matter in camera on November 2, 2016 contrary to the open meeting rules. BIA boards are local boards subject to the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman found that the matter discussed by the board in camera fit within the exceptions for personal matters about an identifiable individual, and labour relations or employee negotiations. However, the board committed procedural violations by failing to pass a resolution before going in camera, failing to record meeting minutes, and voting in a closed meeting. The Ombudsman recognized that most of the board members were volunteers who had not received training on the open meeting rules, and recommended that the Town of Fort Erie ensure all members of its local boards receive such training.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that the November 1, 2016 meeting of London’s Corporate Services Committee was illegally closed to the public to discuss a general policy matter. The Ombudsman found that, while there is no exception to the open meeting requirements that authorizes general policy discussions to take place behind closed doors, the in camera discussion at this meeting was permitted under the solicitor-client privilege exception.

The Ombudsman received complaints that the City of London held illegal closed meetings on May 17 and June 23, 2016, to discuss the appointment of an integrity commissioner, and a recent report of the integrity commissioner. The Ombudsman found that the May 17 Committee of the Whole meeting was permitted to be closed to the public under the solicitor-client privilege and personal matters exceptions, and the June 23 council meeting was permitted to be closed to the public under the solicitor-client privilege exception.

We received complaints alleging that the Walkerton Business Improvement Area and the Municipality of Brockton held three improperly closed meetings on June 13, June 20, and September 27, 2016. The Ombudsman determined that the Walkerton Business Improvement Area did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 on June 13 because the discussion between three board members was not a “meeting” under the Act and was not subject to the Act’s open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman also determined that council for the Municipality of Brockton did not contravene the Act on June 20, 2016, when it met in camera to discuss matters that were subject to “litigation or potential litigation”. However, on September 27, 2016, the municipality contravened the Act when a quorum of councillors attended an information session related to a Drainage Act petition.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the municipality of Temagami held illegal closed sessions on April 28 and August 11, 2016.

We received a complaint that the Laird Fairgrounds Management Board held a meeting that did not comply with the open meeting rules on August 10, 2016.  The board is a committee of the Township of Laird. The committee did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 or the Township of Laird’s procedure by-law when it discussed a matter in camera on August 10, 2016. The discussion fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the City of Timmins held two illegal closed session discussions on August 8, 2016 and August 29, 2016, about the City’s Canada Day 150 Celebrations. The Ombudsman determined that council contravened the Municipal Act when it went in camera on August 8, 2016 under the solicitor-client advice exception and that council should not have voted during that closed session. The Ombudsman found that council did not contravene the  Municipal Act when it went in camera on August 29, 2016 under the solicitor-client advice exception.

Council for the City of Timmins contravened the Municipal Act on June 27, 2016 when it went in camera to discuss the recruitment process to replace the retiring CAO. The discussion did not fall within the personal matters exception to the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman also found that council should not have voted in closed session to form a hiring committee and voted by way of secret ballot on the membership of council members to that committee. 

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council went in camera to discuss a report regarding contracts between the city and a transit ticket kiosk. The complaint also alleged that council voted while in camera to write off an uncollectible account, prior to voting on the matter in open session on May 31, 2016.

The Ombudsman determined that council did not contravene the Municipal Act when it went in camera to discuss the report on March 2 and March 23, 2016 under the personal matters and solicitor-client privilege exceptions, or on April 26, 2016 under the personal matters exception. The Ombudsman also found that council did not improperly vote on the uncollectible account during a closed meeting.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Township of Georgian Bay held illegal closed session discussions on October 13, 2015 and January 11, 2016, about a shoreline structure that did not meet the requirements of the zoning by-law. The Ombudsman determined that council did not contravene the Municipal Act when it went in camera at these meetings under the litigation or potential litigation exception. However, council contravened the Act when it voted during its in camera meeting on October 13, 2015.

The Niagara District Airport Commission contravened the Municipal Act on July 14, 2016, when it went in camera to discuss ongoing airport fee negotiations and related airport upgrades. This meeting did not fall within the “advice subject to solicitor-client privilege” exception, or any exception, to the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman also made recommendations to improve the commission’s procedure by-law and its process for providing information to the public about closed session discussions.

The City of Elliot Lake's Ad Hoc Multi-Use Committee is a committee of council subject to the Municipal Act's open meeting requirements. The committee violated the open meeting requirements and the city's procedural by-law on March 22, 2016 and May 5, 2016 when it held meetings without providing notice to the public. 

The Township of Hornepayne’s Nuclear Waste Community Liaison Committee is a committee of council subject to the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements. The committee contravened the Act and the township’s procedure by-law on January 12, 2016, when it held a meeting without providing any notice to the public.

Council for the Town of Grimsby contravened the Municipal Act and the municipality’s procedure by-law when it discussed a municipally-controlled corporation, Niagara Power Inc., in camera on May 2, 2016. The discussion did not fit within any of the exceptions to the open meeting rules. There is no exception in the Act for discussions about sensitive business information.

The Ombudsman received complaints that council for the County of Norfolk met illegally in a closed meeting on May 24, 2016 to discuss the development of a site-specific zoning by-law for an area in the county known as Hastings Drive. The complaints also alleged that council improperly voted during the closed meeting to remove an option for the zoning by-law from consideration. The Ombudsman determined that council did not contravene the Municipal Act when it went in camera on May 24, 2016 under the litigation or potential litigation exception and the solicitor-client privilege exception. The Ombudsman also found that council did not improperly vote during the closed meeting. One of the complaints alleged that the resolution to proceed in camera was vague. Given the nature of the discussions (solicitor-client privileged advice), the Ombudsman found that the resolution to proceed in camera was sufficient.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the City of Niagara Falls violated the Municipal Act when it voted in closed session to commit $10 million towards a proposed partnership with a post-secondary institution. The Ombudsman found that the discussion did not fit within any of the closed meeting exceptions and that as a result, council was not entitled to vote in closed session on a resolution directing staff to proceed with the partnership.

We received a complaint that the Municipality of West Nipissing failed to provide sufficient notice to the public in advance of a July 21, 2016 special council meeting.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that the Recreation Board of Management and Board’s Ad Hoc Committee in the Town of Goderich held meetings in 2015 and 2016 that did not comply with the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act. The Ombudsman found that the Recreation Board of Management falls within the Municipal Act’s definition of a “local board” and is subject to the Act’s open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman cautioned the Board to be vigilant in adhering to the requirements of the Municipal Act in the future when it forms committees. The Ombudsman noted that, the Board and the Ad Hoc Committee include volunteer members who acted in good faith for the benefit of the community. A number of recommendations were made to assist the Board in improving its open meeting practices.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands had discussed a zoning by-law application over email. The Ombudsman determined that council violated the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act by discussing council business over email and recommended that council cease its practice of discussing council business using quorum emails or any other electronic format.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands discussed reassignment of the Chief Administrative Officer’s duties during a closed meeting held on April 18, 2016.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that committee of the whole for the Township of Woolwich held an improper closed meeting between the closed and open sessions on March 22, 2016 at which they made a decision on an upcoming delegation. The Ombudsman found no evidence that a quorum of the committee discussed the delegation as a group behind closed doors, or laid the groundwork for a decision on the delegation.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that on June 8, 2016, the board of directors for the Walkerton Business Improvement Area discussed matters that did not fall within the exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the City of Sault Ste. Marie discussed matters that did not fall within the exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001 during a closed meeting on October 13, 2015. During the meeting, council received a presentation by the City’s Fire Chief. The Ombudsman determined that the meeting fit within the exception for labour relations or employee negotiations.

Our Office received two complaints about the March 7, 2016 meeting held by the OPP Contact Adhoc Committee for the City of Brockville. Both complaints alleged that the committee’s meeting with representatives of the Ontario Provincial Police did not come within the Municipal Act's closed meeting exception for “education and training” sessions. The Ombudsman determined that the committee did not contravene the Act when it went in camera to acquire education and training about the OPP costing process. However, in addition to receiving this general information from the OPP, the committee decided to advance the costing process by voting to direct staff to approach an audit firm to assess the OPP costing proposal once the city receives it. This discussion and direction to staff advanced the committee’s business and decision-making and did not fall within the “education and training” exception, or any exception, to the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman also identified various procedural issues with the committee's practices.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that the Election Compliance Audit Committee for the City of Hamilton held a “deliberation” on July 15, 2015 that was illegally closed to the public. The Ombudsman determined that the city's Election Compliance Audit Committee falls within the Municipal Act’s definition of a “local board” and is subject to the Act’s open meeting requirements. The committee contravened the Act on July 15, 2015, when it met in private to deliberate on various applications that were before the committee. Notice of the meeting was not provided, no procedure was followed to close the meeting to the public, and even if this procedure had been followed, the committee’s discussion did not fall within any of the Act’s closed meeting exceptions.

The Ombudsman received four complaints about a meeting held by council for the City of Oshawa on December 17, 2015. Each complaint alleged that council’s meeting with the Oshawa Power and Utilities Corporation on that date did not come within the Municipal Act’s closed meeting exception for “education and training” sessions. The Ombudsman found that council for the City of Oshawa contravened the Municipal Act on December 17, 2015, when it went in camera to obtain information about a proposed merger between OPUC and Veridian. This meeting did not fall within the “education and training” exception, or any exception, to the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements. A number of recommendations were made to assist the city in improving its open meeting practices.

We received a complaint that council for the Town of Amherstburg discussed approval of the town’s accounts payable over email during December 2014 and January 2015. We also received complaints that council discussed items in closed meetings on October 14 and 26, 2015 that did not fit within the exceptions to the open meeting rules.

We received complaints that council for Norfolk County discussed matters that did not fall within the exceptions in the Municipal Act, 2001 during closed meetings on January 19 and February 16, 2016.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Midland violated the Municipal Act on September 14, 2015 when it discussed in camera matters relating to a housing development that did not fit within any exception to the open meeting rules. References during the discussion to personal matters about an individual were not the focus of the conversation and did not justify holding the discussion in camera. Council also contravened the Act when it voted on the housing matter during an illegal closed meeting.

The Ombudsman found that Midland council did not contravene the open meeting rules on October 13, 2015, as its discussions fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.

On both dates, council for Midland violated a procedural requirement in the Act by failing to state by resolution the general nature of the matters to be considered in the closed sessions.

Our Office received a complaint that Greater Sudbury's council held an illegal closed meeting on April 7, 2016 when it attended a roundtable with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Our Office received a complaint that Norfolk County's council-in-committee held an illegal closed meeting on December 1, 2015 when it went in camera to discuss whether to approve a legal services contract extension with two law firms. Our investigation determined that the majority of the committee's discussion did not fall within any of the exceptions to the Municipal Act’s open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman made a number of recommendations to improve local practices in the interest of transparency and accountability.

Our Office received a complaint that council for The Nation Municipality held an illegal closed meeting on August 31, 2015 when it restricted access to a council meeting to those who could fit inside the Town Hall, and prohibited individuals from using a microphone and speakers to broadcast the meeting proceedings outside in the parking lot.

We received a complaint that council for the Township of Russell discussed items in closed session on December 7, 2015, that did not fit within the exceptions to the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman found that council contravened the Municipal Act, 2001 when it discussed councillor remuneration in closed session. However, council did not contravene the Act when it went in camera to discuss changes to township employee compensation. Portions of the discussion relating to the salaries of identified municipal employees fell within the closed meeting exception for personal information about an identifiable individual. Other portions of the discussion relating to the township’s compensation strategy and proposed changes to the salary grid fell within the closed meeting exception for labour relations or employee negotiations.

We received two complaints that council for the City of London held an illegal closed meeting on June 10, 2015. Shortly after the meeting began, there was a disruption in the public gallery and members of the public were asked to leave the building. Once the security issue was resolved, the doors to City Hall remained locked to the public.

While the Mayor and council believed that the meeting was open to the public, the public was not actually free to enter the building in order to access council chambers to observe the meeting. Those attempting to watch the meeting did not have access to council chambers for a significant period of time while the front doors to city hall remained locked. During this time period, the meeting was not open to the public as it should have been.

The Acting Ombudsman advised the City to ensure that the public has unimpeded access to council chambers in order to observe all open meetings of council and committees, and to ensure that a formal written policy is created and implemented that sets out security protocols during meetings of council or committees.

We received a complaint that on December 14, 2015, a locked security door prevented the public from accessing the room where council for the Town of Fort Erie was holding what they thought was an open meeting of council. The Acting Ombudsman found that the locked door effectively prevented the public from accessing the meeting room. As a result, the meeting was improperly closed to the public and the public’s right to observe municipal government in process was frustrated. A number of recommendations were made to assist the town in improving its open meeting practices. ​

We received a complaint that council for the Municipality of St.-Charles discussed items in closed meetings on May 15, 2012, June 19, 2013, and May 29, 2014 that did not fit within the exceptions to the open meeting rules. The Ombudsman found that council for St.-Charles contravened the Municipal Act when it discussed audit reports, management letters, and other auditor findings and recommendations in closed session during each of the three meetings. Discussions of individual staff performance and conduct, which ensued as a result of the review of the audit report and management letter, fell within the exceptions for personal matters and labour relations.

Our office found that discussions of a consultant's report on July 3 and July 14, 2015 fit within the personal matters exception to the open meeting requirements.

We received complaints about two closed meetings held by council for the Township of Russell during the afternoon and evening of August 10, 2015. Our review found that council did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001​ on the afternoon of August 10 when it went in camera to receive training on strategic planning because the discussion fell within the exception for education or training sessions. We also found that one matter discussed on the evening of August 10 fell within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual. However, our review found that three of the closed session matters discussed the evening of August 10 did not fall within any of the Act's exceptions to the open meeting requirements.

We received a complaint that the Economic Development Committee for the Township of McKellar held an illegal meeting over email in April 2015 and in person on May 5, 2015. Our review found that the committee contravened the Act and the township's procedure by-law by holding a closed meeting and vote over email between April 22 and 24, 2015. We also found that the committee discussed a matter in camera on May 5 that did not fit within the exceptions in the Act. The Ombudsman noted that, at the time of the meetings, the committee was comprised entirely of volunteer members who acted in good faith while trying to deal with a difficult relationship with council. A number of recommendations were made to assist the township in improving its open meeting practices.

We received a complaint that the heads of council for seven municipalities in West Parry Sound (the Township of Carling, the Municipality of Whitestone, the Town of Parry Sound, the Township of The Archipelago, Seguin Township, the Municipality of McDougall, and the Township of McKellar) have been holding illegal closed meetings, including on February 19, 2015. Our review found that the heads of council gatherings are not meetings for the purposes of the open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman encouraged the heads of council to consider opening their gatherings to the public, given the public interest in many of the matters they discuss.

We received a complaint that the May 13, 2015 inaugural meeting of the Long Term Care Task Force for the Niagara Region was illegally closed to the public. Our investigation found that this meeting contravened the open meeting provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001 and the region's procedure by-law. Notice of the meeting was not provided, no procedure was followed to close the meeting to the public, and, even if this procedure had been followed, the task force's discussion did not fall within any of the closed meeting exceptions. A number of recommendations were made to assist the task force in improving its open meeting practices. ​

The Ombudsman found that the May 25 and June 15, 2015 social gatherings attended by councillors for the City of Owen Sound did not contravene the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001. In addition, the Ombudsman found that council did not contravene the Act on April 27, 2015 when it went in camera to receive legal advice to related to council’s faith blessing. The Ombudsman did not make any recommendations to council.

The Ombudsman found that the May 19 and June 2, 2015 closed session discussions of the Public Works Committee for the Township of Bonfield did not violate the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001.  However, the Ombudsman did identify several procedural violations and made a number of recommendations to improve local practices in the interest of transparency and accountability.

The Ombudsman found that the June 15, 2015 closed session discussion of the Administration/Finance/Fire Committee of the Township of West Lincoln did not violate the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Ombudsman also found that the June 22, 2015 closed session discussion by council for the Township of West Lincoln did not violate the Act’s open meeting provisions. Both meetings fell within the exception for advice subject to solicitor-client privilege. However, the Ombudsman identified several issues with the township's closed meeting procedures and made recommendations to improve council's practices.

We received complaints that council for the Town of Amherstburg held illegal closed meeting on January 10 and June 2, 2015. Our review found that the discussions on January 10 fit within the exceptions for personal matters about an identifiable individual and solicitor-client privilege. We found that the discussions on June 2 fit within the exceptions for personal matters about an identifiable individual, solicitor-client privilege, and labour relations or employee negotiations.

We received a complaint that council for the City of Port Colborne held illegal meetings on March 8, 2010, January 27, 2014, and December 8, 2014. Our review found that the council discussions on March 8, 2010 fit within the exceptions for acquisition or disposition of land and personal matters about an identifiable individual. Discussions on January 27, 2014 fit within the exceptions for personal matters, acquisition or disposition of land, and advice subject to solicitor-client privilege.

On December 8, 2014, the city held an illegal closed meeting. Council's discussions regarding corporate expansion projects, a non-profit organization, and the disposition of city-owned shares in a company did not fit within any of the exceptions to the open meeting rules. Our Office advised the City to cite the proper exception to close a meeting, provide more specificity in the resolution to close a meeting, and avoid talking about matters in camera that do not fit within an exception in the Act.

The Ombudsman found that the council for the City of Niagara Falls did not violate the open meeting provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001 when it informally discussed the council prayer on April 28, 2015.

The Ombudsman found that council for the City of Elliot Lake did not contravene the Municipal Act, 2001 during in-camera meetings on April 13 and April 17, 2015. In addition, there was no evidence that an informal meeting took place on April 17, 2015 following the meeting of council. The Ombudsman also found that an April 20, 2015 gathering of three members of council was not a meeting for the purposes of the open meeting requirements of the Act.

Our Office found that council for the Township of Russell held an illegal closed meeting on June 1, 2015 when it went in camera to view a rebranding presentation for the township. The rebranding presentation did not fall within the exception for education and training sessions, or any other exception, to the open meeting requirements. We also found that the municipality violated section 239(4)(a) of the Act by failing to state by resolution the general nature of the topics to be considered in closed session.

Our Office found that the discussions held by council for the Municipality of Brighton on May 28, 2015 fit within the closed meeting exceptions in the Municipal Act. However, council technically contravened the voting provisions of the Municipal Act and the township’s procedure by-law when it voted on five resolutions in camera. While the purpose and effect of the resolutions was to provide direction to staff, they were not worded as such. Our Office also found that the municipality violated section 239(4)(a) of the Act by failing to state by resolution the general nature of the topics to be considered in closed session.

The Ombudsman found that the Town of Essex held an illegal closed meeting when it exercised its authority and decided through a series of emails in April 2015 to modify the council prayer. The Ombudsman acknowledged that council and staff acted in good faith in order to ensure compliance with the law as clarified by the Supreme Court of Canada. In their haste, however, they failed to turn their minds to the need for transparency and the open meeting requirements contained in the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman found that, when councils for Armour Township and the Village of Burk’s Falls met in camera on January 16, 2015, parts of the discussion did not fit within the exceptions to the open meeting rules in the Act. The councils also failed to comply with a number of procedural rules in the Act and their respective procedure by-laws. A number of recommendations were made to each municipality to improve local practices in the interest of transparency and accountability.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that council for the Town of South Bruce Peninsula voted illegally during several closed sessions discussing the Wiarton Keppel International Airport, all of which were closed under the “acquisition or disposition of land” exception to the open meeting provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001 (the Act). The complaint also alleged other procedural irregularities, informal gatherings and a serial meeting by email. The Ombudsman found that the town did not contravene the open meeting requirements of the Act, though he did identify best practices and procedural step to further improve the town's meeting practices.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Woolwich contravened the Municipal Act during in-camera discussions on January 13, January 20 and February 3, 2015, as well as when it voted to direct staff while in camera on January 20 and February 3, while discussing matters that were not permitted in camera. Council did not contravene the Act during an in camera discussion related to litigation or potential litigation at an August 11, 2014 committee meeting.

The Ombudsman found that council did not contravene the Municipal Act or its procedure by-law by laying the groundwork for future decision-making. However, he did find that the information provided by email and in person prior to this meeting came very close to the line. The only reason the councillor's attempts to lay the groundwork for an upcoming decision of council did not rise to the level of a closed meeting for the purposes of the Act is that he was unsuccessful in his attempt to discuss the matter with a quorum of council.

The Ombudsman was unable to confirm that closed meetings held in November and December 2013 were justified under the Municipal Act, due to the lack of meeting records and available witness information. However, the Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Chamberlain did not violate the Act when it closed part of its June 3, 2014, February 3, 2015, and February 6, 2015 meetings to the public. The Ombudsman made a number of recommendations to assist council to improve its practices with respect to open meetings.

The Ombudsman found that the discussions held by council for McMurrich-Monteith fit within the exceptions in the Municipal Act. The Ombudsman found that the township violated section 239(4)(a) of the Act by failing to state by resolution the general nature of the topics to be considered in closed session on January 12 and February 9. The Ombudsman also found that the township violated its procedural by-law by extending a closed meeting past its 11 p.m. curfew. Further, the township is not following best practices by failing to provide enough information in its agendas about matters to be discussed in closed session, and by failing to ensure that its agendas and resolutions correctly cite the Act.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Municipality of Magnetawan contravened the Act and its own procedure by-law by failing to provide advance notice of the February 28 meeting. Due to the lack of notice, the public was unable to attend the meeting, such that the meeting was effectively closed. The discussions that took place did not fit within any exceptions in the Act. The Ombudsman found that the discussions held in closed session on March 4 fit within the exception for personal matters about an identifiable individual.

We received a complaint that London's Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee illegally closed a meeting to discuss proposals from developers hoping to purchase and redevelop land owned by the City. The Ombudsman found that the discussions fit within the exceptions for acquisition or disposition of land and solicitor-client privilege.

Following the publication of this report, the City of London informed our Office that Councillor Tanya Park was not present during the closed session on March 2, 2015. The report states that all members of council were present. The City did not correct this information when our Office reviewed the draft report with them by phone prior to publication. For the benefit of the record, the City has provided the This link opens in a new tabattached letter, which states: "...the Ombudsman Report entitled "Investigation into whether the City of London's Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee held an illegal meeting on March 2, 2015", dated June 2015, states that "All members of the committee were present during the closed session", which is not correct. As noted on the 13^th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, Councillor Park declared a pecuniary interest on the above­ noted matter and was not in attendance in the meeting room when this matter was discussed and therefore, did not participate in any discussion regarding this matter. As requested, I can confirm that City of London representatives did not raise the error during our teleconference with you, held on June 8, 2015 in which you provided a verbal overview of the findings, noting that a written copy of the preliminary report was not made available to the City of London representatives at that time."

The Ombudsman found that discussions held in person and over email by councillors-elect for the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands prior to their swearing in did not constitute illegal meetings under the Act because there was technically no quorum of council involved.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Cochrane did not violate the Municipal Act when it closed part of its January 27, 2015 meeting under the "advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege" exception.

The Ombudsman found that council for the City of Elliot Lake did not contravene the Municipal Act when it proceeded in camera at meetings held on December 1 and December 15, 2014, and January 5 and February 9, 2015. However, council did contravene the Act when it considered a matter in camera at its December 22, 2014 meeting that did not fit within the "personal matters" exception to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman found that the City of Hamilton did not contravene the Municipal Act when it closed a meeting to the public on December 10, 2014, under the "acquisition or disposition of land" and "a matter under another act" exceptions.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Village of Casselman violated the open meeting requirements at a lunchtime gathering with developers on January 8, 2015.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Amherstburg violated the Municipal Act when it discussed bank signing authorities in closed session under the "personal matters" exception on December 10, 2014.

The Ombudsman found that the Town of Fort Erie did not contravene the Municipal Act when it held a closed meeting on December 10 for the purpose of "education or training". However, the "acquisition or disposition of land" exception, which also was cited, did not apply to the discussions held on December 10.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Municipality of Central Huron did not contravene the Municipal Act when it closed a portion of its January 12, 2015, meeting under the "personal matters" exception. However, the Ombudsman found that council violated its procedure by-law when it failed to audio or video record the closed session.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Town of Bracebridge did not contravene the Municipal Act when it closed portions of the December 9 and December 17 meetings under the "personal matters" exception.

The Ombudsman found that Council for the City of Niagara Falls held an illegal meeting on October 8, 2013. The matter discussed did not fit within any permissible exceptions to the open meeting requirements, and no public notice of the closed session was provided.

The Ombudsman found that the in camera discussion held by council for the City of Niagara Falls on May 29, 2012 with respect to Marineland fit within the solicitor-client privilege exception to the open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman also found that informal "operational" meetings in 2011, 2012 and 2013 did not constitute meetings for the purposes of the open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman made recommendations to improve the City of Niagara Falls’ procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman found that a dinner on November 11, 2014, attended by the newly elected council did not violate the open meeting requirements. However, the Ombudsman found that the signing of a letter on November 6, 2014, by a quorum of council in office at the time was an exercise of council authority in a sequential or serial manner, in violation of the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Municipality of South Huron did not contravene the Municipal Act during seven meetings held between November 2008 and December 2013.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Village of Westport contravened its procedure by-law by failing to provide adequate notice of the October 28, 2014 council meeting.

The Ombudsman found that council for the City of Thorold did not contravene the Municipal Act during individual discussions held between November 3 and November 28, 2014.

The Ombudsman found that discussions held by council for the Town of Cochrane at its February 12, 2013 meeting fit within the personal matters exception to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman found that the September 2, 2014 meeting of the Committee of the Whole of the Township of Black River-Matheson violated the open meeting requirements, because public notice of the changed location of the meeting was not provided.

The Ombudsman found that the August 27, 2014 meeting of council for the City of Clarence-Rockland was improperly closed to the public when council moved to a small conference room that could only accommodate council and select members of the media. The Ombudsman further found that the September 15, 2014, meeting was an open meeting of council and did not violate the requirements of the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman found that discussions held by council for the Town of Amherstburg at its July 7 and September 8, 2014 meetings fit within the cited exceptions to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman found that a July 25, 2014 closed-door meeting between members of Hamilton's Government Relations Contact Team and two Members of Provincial Parliament did not constitute a meeting of council or a committee of council for the purpose of the open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman recommended that the city clarify the membership, role and authority of the Government Relations Contact Team.

The Ombudsman found that closed session discussions held by council for the Township of Baldwin on September 8, 2014 were permissible under the exceptions to the open meeting requirements. However, council took an illegal vote during the closed session in violation of the Municipal Act.

An email of August 9, 2014, and a gathering of August 13, 2014, did not constitute meetings for the purposes of the open meeting provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001. In neither case was there an exercise of the authority of council or laying of the groundwork to exercise such authority.

The Ombudsman found that in camera discussion held by council for the Municipality of Whitestone on February 4, 2014 fit within the personal matters and labour relations exceptions to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman found that council for the City of Welland held illegal closed sessions on March 18, April 15, and May 6. At these meetings, council discussed matters in closed session that were not permissible under the exceptions to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman found that a July 2, 2014 gathering of three members of council for the City of Elliot Lake at a Sustainable Development Roundtable did not constitute a meeting for the purpose of the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman found that discussions held by the Finance and Administration Committee for the City of Elliot Lake on July 7, 2014 fit within the acquisition or disposition of land exception to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman found that a gathering of councillors at a local wharf on April 25, 2014, was a meeting of council for the purpose of the open meeting requirements, and that this meeting was not closed to the public in violation of the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman found that the Waterfront Improvement Committee for the Township of Billings was a committee of council, as described by the Township's procedure by-law. Although the Committee was already holding open meetings, the Ombudsman encouraged the Township to formalize the Committee's terms of reference, as well as the notice procedures for the Committee's meetings.

In his report "Let's Flip For It", the Ombudsman found that a closed session in the Township of Billings - in which council tossed a coin to choose a new councillor - was an illegal closed meeting under the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman found that Council's consideration in closed session of a letter of interest for a vacant lot fell within the "acquisition and disposition of land" exception to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman concluded that a gathering of 12 council members in the City Hall cafeteria between meetings on June 24, 2014 - prior to a vote to fill a vacant council seat the next day - did not violate the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001.

In reviewing a complaint about four closed meetings held by council for the Town of Moosonee, the Ombudsman found that the subject matter of the August 26, 2013 closed session did not fit within the "education or training" exception, or any exception to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman found that some discussions held by council for the City of Elliot Lake during an October 25, 2013 closed session fell within the "personal matters" exception to the open meeting requirements, as they related to unproven allegations against an identified member of council.

The Ombudsman found that the Committee's March 25, 2014 in camera discussion regarding the possibility of having a junior hockey team in the City did involve some personal information.

In reviewing a complaint about closed meetings of Council held in December 2013, March and April 2014, the Ombudsman determined that the December gathering complained of did not constitute a "meeting" under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that discussions held by council for the Township of Brudenell, Lyndoch and Raglan during two closed sessions on March 19, 2014 fit within the "education and training" and "personal matters" exceptions to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman found no evidence that Council members for the Municipality of West Nipissing met behind closed doors with the engineers working on a drainage project in violation of the open meeting requirements in December 2011.

The Ombudsman found that council for the Township of Russell discussed three items in closed session on May 5, 2014 under the "security of the property" exception that did not fit within that exception, or any exception to the open meeting requirements. The Ombudsman also cautioned that council should ensure that all matters discussed in closed session fit within the exceptions cited in the resolution to proceed in camera.

The Ombudsman did not uncover any evidence that a quorum of council met secretly prior to the May 21 or September 3, 2013 public council meetings to discuss  the appointment of a third party investigator or the elimination of the Auditor General's office. 

The Ombudsman found that council's March 31, 2014 discussion regarding a grant to the Fort Erie Racetrack did fit within the "acquisition or disposition of land" exception, because the grant was directly related to a potential land acquisition, such that both matters could not be discussed separately.

The Ombudsman found that council's April 16 closed meeting discussion regarding comments made by a councillor about staff performance did fit within the "personal matters" exception.

The Ombudsman determined that Midland Council's March 17, 2014 closed meeting discussion about the Chief Administrative Officer's absence and workload coverage during the absence fell within the "personal matters" exception to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman reviewed a complaint that meetings of the Board of the Northern Institute of the Arts was a "local board" of the City of Elliot Lake, subject to the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001 (the "Act").

The ombudsman found that council for the City of Owen Sound violated the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera to discuss and vote on funding for an MRI campaign on March 23, 2011.

The Ombudsman found that two separate in camera meetings involving City of London council were closed appropriately.

The Ombudsman found that Council for the Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh did not violate the Municipal Act, 2001 when it went in camera on February 18, 2014 to discuss potential litigation with respect to a wind energy company's discharge of water onto a municipal road allowance.

The Ombudsman found that council for the City of Timmins did not violate the Municipal Act when it went in camera on September 25, 2013, to discuss "potential litigation" with respect to the wastewater treatment plant upgrade.

The Ombudsman found that the Ajax General Government Committee's May 23, 2013 closed door discussion about the disposition of municipal lands (potential lease or sale of lands) fell within the "acquisition or disposition of land" exception to the open meeting requirements. 

The Ombudsman found that closed meetings held by the Municipality of Killarney's Ad-Hoc Committee between June and August 2013 contravened the municipality's procedure by-law because, under the by-baw, all committee meetings must be open to the public unless the subject matter falls within one of the open meeting exceptions of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Ombudsman found that the Niagara District Airport Commission did not hold a "secret" meeting to discuss and decide handling of Freedom of Information requests that were before the Commission.

The Ombudsman found that council's July 22, 2013 discussion of a Council member's request for indemnification for legal fees incurred as a Police Services Board member did not qualify for closed meeting consideration under the open meeting exceptions as the subject matter pertained to the Council member's activities in his professional role and the invoice considered did not reveal any privileged communications between solicitor and client. 

The Ombudsman determined that a quorum of Council's November 1, 2013 meeting with Chief Day of the Serpent River First Nation violated the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman determined that Council's September 9, 2013 closed meeting discussion with the owner of a local sports bar about the terms of a lease agreement violated the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman found that Council's July 23, 2013 closed meeting with its Solicitor to receive advice about litigation filed against the Town in relation to a building permit/development dispute, was permitted under both the "solicitor client privilege" and "litigation or potential litigation" exceptions to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman did not uncover any evidence to support the complaint that council members for the Township of Nairn and Hyman discussed a community investment proposal from a mining/explosives company behind closed doors.

The Ombudsman found that Council's closed meeting discussion with its Solicitor on November 19, 2013 to seek advice on the terms of an outstanding Agreement of Purchase and Sale, which was also subject to an appeal before the Land Registry Tribunal, was permitted under the "solicitor-client privilege" exception to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman found that Council's August 27, 2013 closed meeting discussion with the Municipality's Solicitor about a proposed building by-law, being considered in response to litigation filed against the Municipality, was permitted under the "solicitor-client privilege" and "litigation or potential litigation" exceptions. 

The Ombudsman found that Markstay-Warren council's closed meeting discussions in July and August 2013 about a proposed land acquisition were permitted in closed session.

The Ombudsman found that Council for the Town of Amherstburg did not violate the Municipal Act, 2001 when it held an emergency closed meeting on October 21, 2013.

The Ombudsman found that a majority of council met illegally in November 2012 before decorating a float for local Christmas parades. He also found that a February 2013 committee meeting was appropriately closed to discuss “employee negotiations” – however, it violated the Act because no public notice was given. 

The Ombudsman found that an October 31, 2010 gathering including one incumbent Council member and four Councillors-elect with the lawyer for the Fort Erie Waterfront Association was not subject to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman found that council for the City of Timmins did not violate the Municipal Act when it held a closed meeting on June 17, 2013 to consider a complaint  against a resident with respect to allegations of a zoning by-law infraction.

The Ombudsman found that Council for the Township of Ryerson improperly discussed the Thompson quarry/pit zoning application in closed meetings held on September 24, 2012 and July 9, 2013 and, during the September 24, 2012 closed meeting Council improperly introduced a topic without referencing the matter in the resolution to proceed in camera.

The Ombudsman found that members of the Personnel Committee for the Township of Bonfield did not violate the open meeting requirements with respect to an October 8, 2013 closed session at which the Committee received an update on an on-going municipal labour dispute, a pending Labour Relations Board hearing, and employment matters pertaining to specific municipal employees were discussed.  

The Ombudsman did not uncover evidence that the Council for the Town of Mattawa held a secret meeting to discuss extending the Mayor's duties and increasing his pay for a limited period, a decision that was unanimously passed by Council at a June 24, 2013 public Council meeting.

The Ombudsman found that Council for the Township of North Dumfries did not violate the open meeting requirements with respect to an August 19, 2013 closed session at which Council received an update from the Township Solicitor on matters before the Ontario Municipal Board.

Investigation into whether members of Council for the City of London held an improper closed meeting on February 23, 2013. The Ombudsman concluded that an illegal closed meeting occurred on February 23, 2013, in violation of the Municipal Act, 2001.

Ontario Ombudsman does not find that the Procedure By-Law Review Committee held an illegal closed meeting between May 14 and June 24, 2013.

Based on the Ombudsman's review, it appears the Commission is a local board subject to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman found that the Acton Business Improvement Area Board's June 18, 2013 consideration of a lease agreement qualified for closed meeting consideration.

In a reviewing a complaint about five closed meetings between October 2012 and March 2013, the Ombudsman found that the subject matter discussed during each of the in camera sessions was permitted under the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman found that there had been no secret meetings of council at the township landfill site on August 3 and August 7, 2013, preceding the cancellation of a number of council and committee meetings.

The Ombudsman found that Council improperly introduced and discussed a Councillor cost reimbursement policy in a May 7, 2013 closed meeting.

The Ombudsman did not find that there had been secret meetings involving members of Council prior to the passage of a by-law regarding wind turbines at the January 14, 2013 Council meeting. 

The Ombudsman found that the CAO's February 19, 2013 announcement to a quorum of Council about the resignation of a senior staff's resignation did not constitute a "meeting" for the purposes of the open meeting requirements, as no substantive discussion of Council business took place.

The Ombudsman found that Elliot Lake Council's June 4, 2013 in camera discussion on the status of negotiations between a Joint Relations Committee and the Serpent River First Nation, which was attended by non-Council members of the Committee, was permitted under the Act.

The Ombudsman found that Council's consideration of a matter involving disposition of city-owned lands in a May 21, 2013 closed session was permitted under the Act, and that the city did not violate the open meeting requirements during a meeting on March 20.

The Ombudsman found that Council did not violate the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001 when it met behind closed doors on January 23, 2013 to seek legal advice about a contract with a consultant.

The Ombudsman determined that Council did not violate the open meeting requirements in relation to pre-meeting gatherings held on July 10, 2012 and March 12, 2013.

The Ombudsman determined that the Town of South Bruce Peninsula did not violate the open meeting requirements when it went in camera on seven occasions between September 4, 2012 and January 15, 2013.

The Ombudsman found that the City of Sault Ste. Marie's Procedure By-Law Review Committee violated the open meeting requirements and its procedure by-law when it held closed meetings on November 1, 2012 and January 28, 2013.  

The Ombudsman found that Fort Erie Council's February 4, 2013 closed meeting discussion of the mayor's alleged breach of the Town's Code of Conduct was not authorized under the "personal matters" exception of the Municipal Act, as the subject matter discussed was about the mayor in a professional context, and did not involve consideration of 'personal' information. 

The Ombudsman found that Council for the City of Elliot Lake did not violate the Municipal Act or its Procedure By-Law when it held a special closed meeting without advance public notice in order to discuss an urgent matter with its solicitor. 

The Ombudsman found that the Elliot Lake Economic Development Committee's January 29, 2013 closed meeting discussion included the evaluation and assessment of individual qualifications, experience, and character traits, and, therefore, qualified for closed meeting consideration under the "personal matters" exception to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman found that the September 10, 2012 meeting of the Planning Committee for the Town of Larder Lake was open to the public.

The Ombudsman found that the September 10 meeting of the Planning Committee for the Town of Larder Lake was open to the public.

The Ombudsman found that the Town of Pelham did not improperly vote on an Environmental Protection by-law in closed session, and that Council's March 4 closed session to discuss the by-law fell within the "advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege" exception to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman found that St. Catharines Council's December 17, 2012 closed meeting discussion about potential cuts to identifiable employees in the City of Thorold's Fire Service qualified for closed meeting consideration under the "personal matters" exception.

The Ombudsman found that the September 12, 2012 meeting among six of the seven members of the Niagara District Airport Liaison Committee did not violate the Municipal Act. 

The Ombudsman found that Council for the Municipality of Central Huron contravened the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act during meetings held in May and July, 2012, but that a closed meeting on June 11 was justified based on the exceptions contained in the Act.

The Ombudsman found that the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe did not contravene the Municipal Act during two closed meetings in March 2012.

The Ombudsman found that the Niagara District Airport Commission held improper in camera discussions on May 3 and May 17, 2012, in violation of the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman determined that Council's review of information related to an ongoing Ontario Municipal Board appeal during a closed meeting on November 10, 2010 was permitted in a closed meeting under the "litigation or potential litigation" exception to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman did not find that council for the City of Greater Sudbury violated the open meeting requirements when it closed two meetings in June 2012 to the public in order to discuss the contract of an identified member of staff.

The Ombudsman found that a gathering of four of the nine Niagara District Airport Commission members and four of thirteen St. Catharines Council members on December 9, 2012, was not a "meeting" for the purposes of the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman found that the Planning and Development Committee's consideration of a zoning dispute in its November 7, 2012 closed meeting was permitted under the "potential litigation" exception to the open meeting requirements, as there was a very real potential that litigation would occur if the particular zoning matter was not resolved.

In reviewing a number of closed meetings held between November 2011 and September 2012, the Ombudsman found that council contravened the open meeting requirements at the November 1, 2011 meeting.

The Ombudsman found that Council for the Township of Tiny improperly discussed one item in closed session at its October 29 meeting, in violation of the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman found that Council's closed meeting with the Township Solicitor on November 12, 2012 to discuss the status of an Ontario Municipal Board appeal fell within the "litigation or potential litigation" exception to the open meeting requirements.

The Ombudsman did not find that council for the Municipality of Lambton Shores violated the open meeting requirements when it closed a November 13, 2012 meeting to the public in order to discuss an identified member of staff.

The Ombudsman found that a series of e-mails sent by Municipality of Leamington council members in response to a resident's inquiry and copied to all Council members did not constitute an (electronic) meeting that was subject to the open meeting requirements. 

The Ombudsman found that Council in the Township of Ryerson's discussion of matters pertaining to a quarry zoning application was not permitted within a closed meeting, with one exception - Council's review of written legal advice at the end of hour and forty-five minute meeting did qualify for closed meeting consideration under the "solicitor-client privilege" exception of the Act. 

The Ombudsman found that Council for the Town of Hearst's review of five applications/letters of interest for the Council seat vacancy was permitted under the Act.

The Ombudsman found that council in the Town of Blind River did not violate the Municipal Act when it held a closed meeting on September 17, 2012.

The Ombudsman found that the Centennial Celebration Committee, comprised of the Mayor of Sarnia, City Manager, and no less than seven citizens, did not meet the definition of "committee" under the Municipal Act and, therefore, was not subject to the open meeting requirements. 

The Ombudsman found that Council's agenda and resolution to proceed in camera did not accurately reflect the substance of the closed meeting on May 9, 2012.

The Ombudsman found that Council for the Town of Midland discussed issues in closed session on multiple occasions between December 2011 and March 2012 in circumstances that were not permitted under the exceptions to the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman found that Council for the United Townships of Head, Clara and Maria did not contravene the Municipal Act at meetings held in October and November 2011. The Ombudsman provided some best practice recommendations to help improve the transparency of closed meetings.

The Ombudsman found that the City of Greater Sudbury did not contravene the open meeting requirements during meetings on October 3 and 12, November 9 and December 14, 2011, during which a personal matter related to an identifiable individual was discussed. However, he did strongly criticize council members for their reluctance to co-operate with the investigative process.

In reviewing complaints that Council in Morris-Turnberry improperly discussed in closed meetings the development of a local fire department, the Ombudsman found that Council did not always accurately or clearly identify the subject matter to be discussed or the exceptions authorizing the closed meetings.

The Ombudsman found that the Regional Municipality of Niagara's notice practice for advisory committee meetings did not comply with its Procedure By-Law in that agendas were not posted on the website prior to meetings.

The Ombudsman found that Council for the City of Elliot Lake violated the Municipal Act when a quorum of council attended a meeting of the Elliot Lake Residential Development Commission on April 16, 2012, and a meeting of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization on April 26, 2012.

The Ombudsman found that the City of London did not contravene the open meeting requirements when six members of council met for lunch at a local restaurant on February 21, 2012, prior to a budget meeting and several committee meetings.

The Ombudsman found that the Town of Amherstburg did not contravene the open meeting requirements when it received advice subject to solicitor-client privilege in a closed session on January 9, 2012, or when it went in camera on February 13, 2012.

The Ombudsman found that Fort Erie Council complied with the open meeting requirements in regard to closed meetings held on July 9 and 16, 2012, however, they violated the open meeting requirements at two closed meetings in April and May, 2012.

The Ombudsman found that the Township of Tiny's Committee of the Whole's March 26, 2012 closed meeting discussion about the public's reaction to a court decision was not permitted in a closed meeting under the exception "litigation or potential litigation."

The Ombudsman found that the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe did not contravene the Municipal Act during two closed meetings in March 2012.

The Ombudsman reviewed three closed meetings in late 2011 and early 2012 and found that the matter discussed was permitted in a closed meeting.

The Ombudsman found that Council of the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands violated the open meeting requirements when it considered and voted to approve an increase in Council remuneration behind closed doors.

The Ombudsman found that London councillors did not violate the Municipal Act when they met in camera to discuss the "Occupy London" protest last November.

The Ontario Ombudsman cautions City of Hamilton councillors they were on thin ice - but finds their breakfast with the Edmonton Oilers' president and local hockey coach didn't break the open meeting law.

The Ontario Ombudsman reviewed several complaints alleging that improper closed meetings had occurred in Clarence-Rockland between November 2010 and June 2011.

The Ombudsman confirmed that the council for the Town of Amherstburg repeatedly contravened the Municipal Act and its own procedure by-law. Council discussed issues in closed session that were not permitted under the exceptions to the Municipal Act, and also routinely engaged in improper voting behind closed doors.

The Ombudsman found that the City of Hamilton held two improperly closed sessions on June 27, 2011, during which the dissolution of the Board of Directors of Hamilton Entertainment Convention Facilities Inc., as well as a grant request from McMaster University, were discussed.

The Ombudsman determined that a meeting arranged by municipal staff to allow community members to discuss concerns about a sewage expansion project with the consulting firm leading the project was not subject to the open meeting rules, as it did not involve the exercise of council's authority or laying the groundwork for future council decision making.

Our Office found that the Township of Larder Lake held an emergency meeting on September 1, 2011, without following the necessary procedural requirements, including providing notice to the public and passing a resolution to proceed in camera.

Our Office found that members of council of the Municipality of Grey Highlands did not contravene the open meeting provisions when they had lunch with staff from a developer of commercial wind turbines.

Our Office reviewed a complaint that notice of a Minor Variance Committee meeting was not provided. We found that, although notice of this particular meeting was provided, the Committee did not have its own procedure by-law.

Our Office found that Howick Township Council contravened the open meeting requirements when it met behind closed doors to discuss changes to a proposed agreement between the Township and the local Agricultural Society.

The Ombudsman reviewed meetings held by Council for the Town of South Bruce Peninsula between January and March 2011, and found several violations of the open meeting provisions.

The Ombudsman found that the Town of Kearney's Ad Hoc Personnel Committee violated the Municipal Act when it held a closed meeting in April 2011.

Our Office found that Council for the Township of Georgian Bay contravened the open meeting requirements when it met with a local association representing the interests of cottagers.

The Ombudsman found that the Town of Amherstburg improperly held a vote during an emergency closed meeting in February 2011 regarding rescinding naming rights for a local recreation complex from a convicted sex offender.

The Ombudsman found that Sault Ste. Marie’s Agenda Setting Review Committee, comprised of three council members and two municipal employees, was obligated to comply with the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that the Town of Kearney’s newly elected council improperly held closed meetings on November 5 and November 26, 2010.

The Ombudsman determined that the Town of Mattawa’s Ad Hoc Heritage Committee held a series of improperly closed meetings.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that the Town of Kearney improperly held a closed special meeting of council on August 25, 2010 and that prior notice of the meeting had not been given.

The Ombudsman determined that the council of the Town of South Bruce discussed a topic in closed session in September 2009 that was not properly identified in the resolution authorizing the meeting. The investigation also determined that unhealthy tensions existed at that time on council that contributed to its failure to comply with the open meetings law.

The Ombudsman found Baldwin Township council contravened the open meeting requirements of the Municipal Act in July 2008 and recommended several changes to its practices and procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman found that the Township of Enniskillen council considered a land acquisition in closed session, which is permitted, but the resolution authorizing the closed meeting was vague and other topics were discussed that could not legally be dealt with in a closed meeting.

The Ombudsman found an Oshawa council committee improperly met behind closed doors in May 2008 in an “education and training” session with representatives of a recycling company that had been the subject of odour complaints. 

The Ombudsman found that Nipissing Township council improperly held a closed meeting on April 25, 2008.

On April 21, 2008, my Office received a complaint about a closed meeting held by the council of the Township of Emo on April 8, 2008. The complainant alleged that after the adjournment of the regular meeting of council on that date, council held an unauthorized in-camera meeting with members of the Rainy River District Regional Abattoir Inc. (Abattoir Inc.) to discuss matters related to the abattoir project planned for the Township.

The Ombudsman warned Sudbury councillors that their closed-door meeting regarding the city’s Elton John concert ticket scandal was close to the legal line.

The Ombudsman found that Fort Erie council did nothing wrong when it met behind closed doors on January 7, 2008 for an “education and training session.” However, in the interest of furthering transparency in local government, the Ombudsman recommended that council give more detail about such meetings in advance.